get_uid

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 the action and parameters, but does not disclose side effects (though likely non-destructive), error handling for invalid paths or missing UIDs, or any output format details. The description is too sparse to convey expected behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by parameter details. Each sentence earns its place; there is no fluff. The structure is logical: purpose first, then parameter guidance. It could be improved by adding a brief note on expected output or error conditions, but as written it is appropriately sized.

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 a simple getter with an output schema (though not shown in the prompt, the context indicates one exists), which lessens the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks information on failure modes (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist, if the project path is invalid, or if the resource has no UID). For a tool with only two parameters and a straightforward purpose, this is borderline adequate but leaves gaps that an agent might encounter.

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 zero descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by adding meaningful semantic context: 'Absolute path to the Godot project directory' and 'File path relative to project'. This clarifies the required format and relationship between the two parameters, which is exactly what an agent needs to construct a valid call. However, it doesn't specify edge cases like path normalization or validation, so it's not a full 5.

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 ('Get the UID') and a specific resource type ('Godot 4.4+ resource file'). It clearly differentiates from sibling update_project_uids by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. The verb-resource pairing is clear and unambiguous.

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 a UID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., files that don't have UIDs). It provides the context of needing a UID but lacks explicit routing guidance, though the sibling name update_project_uids makes the distinction inferable.

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