run_headless_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the prose must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the headless mode, the Godot CLI mechanism, the timeout, and the structured log output. It stops short of stating whether any project files or .godot artifacts may be modified by the import validation, which is a meaningful gap for a no-annotation tool, but the general behavior is not hidden.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose summary followed by a minimal Args legend. Every sentence contributes operational information, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 description covers what the tool does, how it does it (Godot CLI), all parameter semantics, timeout behavior, and the output shape, and an output schema already exists for return details. It lacks explicit prerequisites/side-effect caveats, which prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, and the Args block compensates fully: it explains project_path requires an absolute path, enumerates the check values ('import', 'uids', 'shaders', 'all'), and gives effective defaults for checks and timeout_seconds. This adds operational meaning beyond the bare JSON schema properties.

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 opens with 'Headless Project Diagnostics' and a specific verb-resource statement: invoke the Godot CLI to validate imports, check UID linkages, and detect broken shader entry points. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_editor, run_project, or update_project_uids.

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 intended use is implied by the listed diagnostics (imports, UIDs, shaders) and the word 'headless', so an agent can infer when to reach for it. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives such as get_debug_output for runtime issues or update_project_uids for fixing UID problems.

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