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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects, but it only says 'Add a node.' It does not state whether the scene file is modified in place, whether saving is required, whether the operation is reversible, or any permissions needed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence without redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices content for brevity. The structure is fine, and the main purpose 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 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value, whether the scene is saved automatically, or the relationship between parameters (e.g., parentNodePath). The agent lacks essential context to use the tool correctly.

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 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 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 clearly states the action (Add) and the resource (a node to an existing scene). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_scene and save_scene by focusing on modifying an existing scene rather than creating or saving one.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it modifies an existing scene and might require save_scene afterward, nor does it contrast with create_scene. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not run the full project, that it captures exactly one frame, and that it requires a real display. It does not mention filesystem side effects or failure behavior, but it adds meaningful context beyond a bare capture statement.

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?

Three concise sentences each earn their place: the load-and-capture behavior, the return value, and the critical display requirement. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary schema repetition.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what scene to load, that it returns an image, that it avoids a full project run, and that a display is required. Minor gaps remain around the exact representation of the returned image and error conditions, but the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 the input schema already explains projectPath, scenePath, and timeoutMs. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as scene-path conventions or timeout consequences, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Load', 'capture') and identifies a precise resource (a .tscn scene file), while clearly stating the output is one rendered frame returned as an image. The phrase 'without running the full project' also helps distinguish it from project/run_scene-like operations.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want a single scene's rendered frame without launching the whole project. It also states a hard prerequisite ('Requires a real display (not --headless)'), but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as capture_screenshot or run_scene, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses that the tool runs a scene, captures and returns an image, requires a non-headless display, and suggests xvfb-run for headless environments. It does not mention process lifecycle side effects or interactions with an already-running Godot instance, but the core behavioral expectations are transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the first states the action and result, the second explains why the agent would use it, and the third gives a crucial environment caveat. The most important 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?

The description is complete enough for a single-purpose capture tool: it states what it returns, why it matters, and the environment requirement. There is no output schema, so the description's note that it 'returns the image' is valuable. It could add a bit more about behavior when Godot is already running or about the returned image format, but those are secondary gaps.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including defaults and timeout behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('run a Godot scene and capture a screenshot') and the resource ('rendered output'), and it explains the purpose: letting the agent visually verify the scene. It does not differentiate itself from the nearly identical sibling tool 'capture_scene_screenshot', so it loses the fifth point.

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 gives useful context for when this tool is appropriate: when visual verification of a rendered scene is needed. It also provides an important operational prerequisite (real display required, xvfb-run for headless Linux). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it does not reach a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description alone must communicate side effects. It only says 'create' without disclosing whether it overwrites an existing file, what happens on failure, or what the return value is. This is minimal and leaves important behavioral details unknown.

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, succinct sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the primary action but lacks details about return values or error behavior, and it does not clarify whether the scene is saved immediately or merely created in memory. Given the simplicity of the operation, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (projectPath, scenePath, rootNodeType), giving full coverage. The tool description itself adds no extra clarity, so it stays at the baseline expected for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a new Godot scene file'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'save_scene' (which saves an existing scene) and 'add_node' (which adds nodes to a scene).

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 creating new scene files but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like save_scene. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without mentioning side effects such as file creation, overwriting behavior, or read-only implications. The burden falls on the description, which is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words, effectively conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description omits details about return values, error handling, or overwrite semantics. While acceptable for a simple export operation, these gaps prevent a higher score.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with clear descriptions, including file extensions and the default behavior of meshItemNames. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'a scene as a MeshLibrary resource', precisely distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_scene or save_scene.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where export_mesh_library is preferred over save_scene or other scene-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects, requirements (e.g., running project), return format, or error behavior. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently communicates the core function with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits important context such as when debug output is available, whether a project must be running, and the format of the returned output. With no annotations or output schema, these gaps make the description incomplete for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; baseline 4 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current debug output and errors'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getters like get_project_info or get_uid, but the resource is unique enough that an agent can infer its purpose. However, 'current' is ambiguous (current project? current session?), so not a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project running) or exclusion cases, and there is no reference to sibling tools like run_project or stop_project. An agent is left without context on when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what it does, without mentioning side effects, error handling (e.g., if Godot is not installed), or whether any configuration is modified. For a simple getter this is a gap, but the lack of side effects is implicit.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. The information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Perfectly concise.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies what is retrieved, but does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., version string) or behavior if Godot is absent. Given the simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly does not.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('installed Godot version'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_node or launch_editor, which are about different operations. No ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given its singular purpose and the lack of overlapping sibling getters, the usage is implied. There is no guidance on prerequisites or conditions, which could be added but is not critical.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the main behavior: parsing a .gd file and returning structured JSON with the listed elements. It does not address potential side effects, read-only guarantees, error behavior, or limitations such as not executing the script.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the resource and output contents, and the second clarifies the return format and purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with fully documented parameters and a description that enumerates the return fields, the essentials are covered. It could add explicit read-only/no-side-effect wording and error behavior, but the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description names method, variable, and dependency categories that map to the include* boolean parameters, but it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names the specific resource type (a GDScript .gd file) and lists the extracted content: class name, extends, signals, exports, variables, methods, and dependencies. It is clear about what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_scene_insights.

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 communicates the general use case—understand a script without reading raw code—which implies when an agent would want it. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

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

The verb 'retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or what permissions it requires. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially covers the behavior.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema or description of what metadata is returned. The term 'metadata' is vague and does not specify whether it returns project configuration, version info, or something else, leaving the agent without enough context to know what to expect.

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?

The parameter 'projectPath' is described as 'Path to the Godot project directory', which is clear and covers the basic meaning. However, since the schema already provides this description, the tool description adds no additional detail about path format, required existence, or edge cases.

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 action 'retrieve' and the target 'metadata about a Godot project', making the tool's basic purpose easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_godot_version or get_uid, which could also be considered metadata retrieval.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent has little context for choosing this over more specific retrieval tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavioral traits. It mentions that structured JSON is returned, but never explicitly states that the tool is read-only/non-mutating, what happens on invalid paths, or whether it parses only vs. modifies. The 'get' name hints at safety but the description leaves this implicit.

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 tight sentences, with the core action and target file type front-loaded and the output format stated immediately. Every clause adds information: file type, extracted content, return type, and intended benefit.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry more context. It conveys the high-level return content but does not describe the JSON shape, required path semantics beyond schema names, behavior for missing/invalid scenes, or side-effect safety. It is a viable minimal description, not a complete one.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond naming the three insight categories that map to the boolean flags, which is exactly the baseline value expected when the schema carries the detail.

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?

States a specific action ('Understand a Godot scene file') with concrete content areas: node hierarchy, attached scripts, and signal connections, and distinguishes the tool's scope from raw file reading. It does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools like get_node_insights, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives a clear context: use this when the agent needs structural scene understanding 'without reading raw scene files'. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is evident enough for typical selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions required, or side effects. The tool could be assumed to be a simple getter, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving the behavior opaque.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and relevant version constraint.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers its basic purpose. However, it does not mention the return format, potential errors, or edge cases. While acceptable for a straightforward getter, it leaves some context incomplete.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: getting the UID for a specific file in a Godot project. It also specifies the Godot version constraint (4.4+), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like update_project_uids.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is obvious, there is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or where other tools (e.g., update_project_uids) should be used instead.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any side effects, blocking behavior, or requirements (e.g., whether it opens a new window, requires an existing project, or modifies any files). This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's impact.

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?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently comprehensive. It lacks necessary details about behavior and usage, so while it is short, it doesn't earn its place by providing full value. A 3 reflects the balance between brevity and adequacy.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context to call it correctly. It states the action but omits critical information such as whether the editor must be installed, whether the path must point to a valid project, and whether the call is blocking or returns immediately. This is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 is 100%, so the parameter projectPath is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the action, but the schema already explains the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't harm, but it also doesn't enhance the parameter meaning.

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 action (launch) and the resource (Godot editor) for a specific project. It distinguishes implicitly from siblings like run_project (which runs the project rather than opening the editor) and list_projects (which lists projects). However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or the selection criteria, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_project. The description does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or conditions that would lead an agent to select this tool over its siblings. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only restates the listing action and file categories. It does not state whether the listing is recursive, whether it is read-only, how invalid project paths are handled, or the shape of the returned results.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. There is no redundant or tangential content.

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?

For a simple listing tool with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits behavior details like recursion and output format, and it does not position the tool relative to siblings, which an agent would need for correct invocation in ambiguous situations.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to restate them. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters themselves; the categories mentioned map loosely to the type enum but do not clarify the pattern or projectPath semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource (Godot project files across scenes, scripts, resources, and shaders), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or run_project. However, the enum in the schema does not include a 'shader' category, so the description slightly overstates the available filter options.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or get_project_info. It also does not mention recommended scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions under which the pattern/type filters should be used.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic listing action and adds no details about whether the operation is read-only, how Godot projects are identified, what the return format is, or how the recursive parameter behaves in practice.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place, and the core action and scope are immediately visible.

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?

For a simple listing tool with two parameters, the description is minimally adequate: the schema covers parameter meanings. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify what the returned list contains (e.g., project names, paths) or whether directories without project.godot are ignored, leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, and both parameters are already documented clearly in the schema ('Directory to search for Godot projects' and 'Whether to search recursively (default: false)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Godot projects') and a scoping location ('in a directory'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_project_info or run_project, which target a single project or perform an action.

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 phrase 'in a directory' implies the tool is for project discovery in a filesystem location, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or follow-up tools like get_project_info for inspecting a specific project.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states that a sprite is loaded into a node, without mentioning whether this modifies the scene file, requires a saved scene, returns a value, or has any persistent effects. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary details. It is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action without distraction.

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 lack of an output schema and the mutation-like nature of the action, the description is insufficiently contextual. It does not explain what 'load' means operationally (e.g., sets a texture property, replaces an existing asset), whether the scene must be saved, or what the expected result is. This leaves gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool correctly.

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%—all four parameters have individual descriptions explaining their meaning (e.g., 'Path to the texture file (relative to project)'). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (load) and the target resource (a sprite into a Sprite2D node), making the tool's primary purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_node, but the specific action is distinct enough for basic identification.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as add_node or other scene modification tools. It omits any contextual conditions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the action description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the destructive action of closing an editor and the scope restriction. It does not describe return behavior or handling of unsaved changes, but the core side effect and boundary are transparent.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded before the clarifying restriction, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the source (launch_editor), the scope (this server), and the limitation. Only minor details like no-op or error behavior when no editor is open are omitted.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete by default; the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds useful context about how the target editor is identified—via launch_editor—rather than listing nonexistent parameters.

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?

States 'Close' as the verb and 'Godot editor' as the resource, and specifies the scope 'launched by this MCP server via launch_editor.' This distinguishes it from siblings like stop_project and run_scene, which target running processes/scenes rather than the editor itself.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to a prior launch_editor call and adds an exclusion: only server-spawned editors are affected. This tells an agent when the tool applies and when it does not, even though no alternative sibling tool is relevant for this action.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions 'capture output' but does not disclose side effects, blocking behavior, or whether the process continues running after invocation. The name 'run_project' implies execution but lacks specifics about what the user will observe.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose without unnecessary words.

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 is present, and the description does not clarify what 'capture output' means—whether it returns logs, exit codes, or streams. It also omits whether the tool blocks until the project closes or returns immediately. This leaves the agent uncertain about the expected behavior and return format.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage for both parameters with their descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Run') and object ('the Godot project'), plus a specific outcome ('capture output'). It is distinct from siblings like `launch_editor` or `stop_project`, though the phrase 'capture output' could be more detailed about what output is captured.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, like whether the project must exist or if the Godot editor must be closed, nor does it explain the effect of the optional 'scene' parameter in context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Capture output' hints at return behavior, but it does not explain whether the tool blocks until the scene exits, whether timeoutMs stops it, whether it launches a separate process, or what side effects running a scene may have. This is a meaningful transparency gap.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of schema details. It communicates the core action and a key behavioral aspect ('capture output') in eight words, earning its place entirely.

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?

Even though the params are well-documented in the schema, there is no output schema and no annotation to clarify what 'capture output' means, how the run lifecycle works, or what the agent should expect as a response. The description leaves key operational context missing for a tool that launches a scene.

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 the input schema already documents projectPath, scenePath, and timeoutMs. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but it also does not need to because the schema is complete. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Run') and the target resource ('a specific Godot scene'), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like run_project by emphasizing the scene-level scope and adding the output-capture behavior. It is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose run_scene over alternatives such as run_project, launch_editor, or stop_project. The word 'specific' lightly implies scene-level execution, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool mutates/saves a scene file, not whether it overwrites the existing file, how newPath behaves beyond the schema's variant hint, or what happens on failure.

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?

One short sentence with no filler or redundant content; the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, even though it sacrifices detail that is captured in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate but does not; it omits overwrite behavior, success/failure signaling, and any preconditions. The schema covers parameters, so the tool is not wholly underspecified, but the description alone is insufficient for confident invocation.

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%: projectPath and scenePath are described as paths, and newPath is explicitly documented as an optional path for creating variants. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 uses the specific verb 'save' with the resource 'scene file,' clearly indicating a persistence operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from create_scene, though 'save changes' implies an existing scene, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus create_scene or other scene tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are provided. The word 'changes' implies use after modifications, but that is not actionable enough to help an agent choose correctly.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Stop' without explaining side effects (e.g., unsaved changes, process termination), error conditions (no running project), or whether it's reversible. For a destructive action, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, succinct sentence that directly states the action and target. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core action. However, it doesn't mention what happens if no project is running or whether the tool returns any feedback, which would be useful but not critical for a stop action. The description is mostly complete given its simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. It adds no extra parameter meaning because none exist.

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 states a specific action ('Stop') and a specific resource ('the currently running Godot project'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like run_project (which starts) and get_debug_output (which retrieves output), so an agent can easily infer its purpose.

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 (when you need to stop a running project) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Since it's a simple action with no parameters, the context is clear, but it doesn't provide explicit routing like naming run_project as the counterpart.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions resaving resources, implying file modifications, but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or whether it may alter many files. The version requirement is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It avoids extraneous detail and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what it does and the version constraint, but omits guidance on when to use it and potential side effects. Given the simplicity, it is not severely incomplete but lacks context an agent might need to decide correctly.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage with a clear description ('Path to the Godot project directory'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for a fully documented parameter but does not enhance understanding further.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a resource ('UID references in a Godot project'), and a method ('by resaving resources'). It clearly identifies the tool's function and includes a version constraint (Godot 4.4+), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_uid that retrieve UIDs.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a version requirement, but does not explain scenarios (e.g., after moving or renaming files) or when to prefer other project tools. The intended use is implied but not stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does explain the main behavior — returning recent captured stdout/stderr lines — which is useful. However, it does not mention limitations, behavior when no editor/project has launched yet, whether the buffer is persistent, or any side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the specific return behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the source of logs, the content type, and the return shape. It could be stronger by noting what happens when no prior launch/run exists, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema fully documents lineCount, including its default and max. The description adds only the phrase 'last N lines,' which aligns with the parameter but does not add meaningful semantic value 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 states a specific verb ('View') and a specific resource ('recent console output from the last launched editor or running project'). It also clarifies the return value ('last N lines of captured stdout/stderr'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool get_debug_output, which could plausibly serve a similar purpose.

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 when the tool is relevant: after an editor has been launched or while a project is running. It gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention an alternative such as get_debug_output, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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