Godot status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently lists the specific checks performed (version, project detection, bridge state, processes) and the context for use. It stops short of explicitly stating the tool is read-only or non-destructive, though 'health check' strongly implies this.

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. The first sentence outlines the checks performed; the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes value.

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 status tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be checked and when to use it, while the schema handles parameter specifics. No output schema is needed because the description lists the reported check categories.

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 only parameter 'project' is fully documented in the schema with a description and optionality note, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a middle score 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 performs an environment and project health check, enumerating specific aspects (Godot version, project detection, bridge state, running processes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_project or editor_control by positioning it as a diagnostic/status tool.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Start here when anything is unexpected, or to confirm setup,' providing clear guidance on when to invoke this tool first. It implies this is a preliminary check before using more specific tools, which is effective usage guidance.

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