run_scene

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.