run_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose debug mode and output capture, which are useful behavioral traits, but it omits side effects such as whether the process remains running, whether output is returned immediately, or whether stop_project must be called afterward.

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 with the core purpose; the Args block is minimal and every line adds meaning beyond the schema. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, mode, output behavior, and parameter semantics. It only lacks lifecycle context and sibling-tool routing, which keeps it slightly short of full completeness.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains both parameters: project_path must be an absolute path, and scene is an optional specific scene file. This meaningfully adds beyond the bare schema, though the scene argument format could be more precise.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Godot project'), plus the mode ('debug mode') and outcome ('capture output'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_editor, get_debug_output, and stop_project.

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?

'Run a Godot project in debug mode and capture output' implies the intended use case, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over launch_editor or get_debug_output, nor does it mention exclusions such as release-mode running.

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