run_project

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. It does not state whether running blocks, whether an existing project must be open, whether it stops a previous run, or what 'capture output' actually returns or stores.

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 wasted words and is easy to scan. It is appropriately brief for the limited parameter set, though it sacrifices behavioral detail 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?

This is a side-effecting tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description leaves the run lifecycle, output format, and relationship to related tools unexplained. The description is minimally viable but incomplete for confident autonomous 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the description adds little semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter meaning adequately.

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, 'Run the Godot project', and a secondary behavior, 'capture output'. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from run_scene, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 run_scene or stop_project, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the short description.

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