godot_get_project_info

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining progressive disclosure (summary by default, full on request) and listing the data fields returned. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so the description enriches but does not contradict.

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?

Two concise sentences: first specifies the tool's output, second explains the progressive disclosure. No fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and data scope adequately. It could mention the return format (e.g., JSON), but the listed items and progressive disclosure provide sufficient context.

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 coverage for the single parameter 'detail' is 100%, with a clear description and enum. The description reinforces that 'summary' is default and 'full' provides more detail, but adds no new semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns a project structure overview listing specific components (name, version, scenes, scripts, etc.). While it is specific and uses a verb, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like godot_analyze_scene or godot_get_diagnostics, though the purpose is distinct.

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?

The description implies usage for obtaining project info, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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