Briefing before you build a model

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns plain text, targets small models, is fuzzy-tolerant ('typos and plurals work', English or Dutch), and covers both identify and spec in one call. No contradiction with annotations.

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 content inventory is front-loaded and the fallback routing comes after, which is the right order. The enumeration of eight briefing sections is dense but each item tells the agent what to expect; it is one long sentence-heavy block but with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains that the return is plain text and inventories what that text contains, so an agent knows what to do with the result. Input tolerance and sibling routing are also covered; nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema example already illustrates the single `text` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by stating the parameter accepts a name or short description, that typos and plurals still resolve, and that Dutch is accepted — information absent from 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 states exactly what the tool returns — a one-page pre-build briefing — and enumerates its contents (what the thing is, ready-made starting kind with build command, node names, typical size, rules, common mistakes, tool order, spec cheat sheet). It explicitly distinguishes itself from godot_model_identify and godot_model_spec, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

It gives both sides of the decision: use this when you just want to start, and call godot_model_identify / godot_model_spec instead when you need every detail (all variants and sizes, or the full spec). The alternative and the condition that selects it are named explicitly.

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