Map the Godot project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces that with the higher-value fact that no Godot process is required ('without running Godot') and that it errors when no project.godot exists at or above `path` — a failure mode the annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing output shape or cost/scale for large projects, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then when-to-use, then sibling routing, then the `detail` tradeoff, then safety and the error case. Four dense sentences with no filler — every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden itself — and it does, enumerating the mapped artifacts and what each detail level emits. Combined with the error condition and read-only guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly on a two-parameter tool.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra by spelling out what `detail` actually changes ('brief gives one line per scene and script; full adds node trees with line numbers, signal connections, input events and settings'), which is more concrete than the schema's 'short output with capped lists'. It also implicitly clarifies `path` behavior via the 'at or above `path`' walk-up reference, though that detail is mostly carried by 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Map a Godot 4 project from its files') and enumerates exactly what is extracted: scenes with node trees, scripts with class_name/signals/functions/exports, autoloads, input actions, settings, broken references. It also carves out the sibling territory explicitly ('For one name use godot_usages; for engine classes use godot_api'), so an agent can distinguish it from godot_usages and godot_api without opening a 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?

Gives explicit timing ('Call this first in a project, and again after large changes') plus named alternatives and the condition that selects each. Nothing about when to prefer a sibling is left to inference.

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