run_project_capture

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it reveals headless execution, a bounded run duration, output-marker parsing, and the fact that it returns a verdict rather than raw logs. It does not say what happens on timeout, missing scene, or failure to launch Godot, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action (headless run) and trails into the two outputs (parsed markers, verdict). No filler or restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the return contract is only alluded to as an 'exit verdict' without describing its fields or possible values, and no annotations supply a safety profile. For a 4-parameter execution tool the description is minimally adequate but leaves the response shape and failure modes unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (scene, failOnError, projectPath, durationSeconds) are documented in the schema, including defaults and the 280s cap. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource (run a Godot project headless), plus two distinguishing behaviors: a fixed/capped duration and parsing [SIGNAL] JSON markers into an exit verdict. That is more than a generic 'run project'. It stops short of naming how it differs from the sibling run_project, which an agent must infer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The tool sits next to run_project, run_tests, and export_check, and the description never says which scenario selects this one (e.g., CI capture of structured markers). The implied use is headless verification runs, but that must be guessed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.