Project info

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. 'Read this' implies a non-mutating operation, and the description clarifies the informational scope, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and ending with a practical directive. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It lists content categories but doesn't describe the response shape or format, leaving a moderate completeness gap for an agent consuming the result.

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 covers 100% of parameters (include and project) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by enumerating important sections but doesn't add new parameter-level detail 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 identifies the tool as providing project settings relevant to coding (main scene, autoloads, input actions, physics layers, file counts). It uses the imperative 'Read this' to signal retrieval, but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or use a verb like 'get/list', so it doesn't fully distinguish from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to read before generating gameplay code, establishing a clear use case. It lacks exclusionary language or alternative tool mentions, but the context is sufficient for when to use it.

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