godot_game

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether play starts a new game session, if stop is destructive (clears state), or how status returns information. Only action names are given.

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?

Very concise, two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with 'Game lifecycle' immediately conveys domain. Could be improved by separating actions list with formatting, but efficient overall.

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?

Given no output schema, 2 parameters with 0% coverage, and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. Missing details on return values (e.g., status output), error conditions, and when actions are valid. Leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning by noting that 'play' accepts optional 'scene' and 'frozen' parameters. However, the generic 'params' parameter remains unexplained, and other actions' parameters are unspecified.

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 clearly states 'Game lifecycle' and lists specific actions (play, stop, pause, resume, status), indicating control over game execution. It distinguishes from sibling tools like godot_scene or godot_editor_edit by focusing on lifecycle management.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_scene or godot_runtime_state. The description only lists actions without context on prerequisites (e.g., game must be loaded) or when not to use it.

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