godot_export_project

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide no safety information, and the description adds little beyond 'via CLI'. It does not disclose that this writes a file to output_path, may require configured export presets, or that debug builds are separate. The agent gets minimal warning about the operation's effects.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence with no redundant words. The core action is front-loaded, and the sentence earns its space. There is 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?

Given the tool has three parameters and low schema coverage, the description is far too sparse. It fails to mention the output_path parameter, the debug flag, or any prerequisites like having export_presets.cfg configured. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or guess.

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%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at 'target preset' for preset_name and 'binary' for output, but completely omits output_path and debug semantics. An agent would not know the roles of each parameter from the description alone.

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 identifies the action (export), the resource (project binary), and how it's done (via CLI). It is specific enough to distinguish from running the project or getting presets, though it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_run_project or godot_get_export_presets. The description only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer when it applies.

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