godot_get_version

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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the purpose and clarifies the projected output (version, build info, mode, project path) without contradicting the annotations, though it adds no side-effect or error information.

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, efficient sentence that lists all returned fields without fluff. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of the tool's output.

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?

The tool is a simple enrichment read (no arguments required), and the description covers the return contents plus the project path, which is the most behaviorally important output for an agent. An error/exception section would be a nice addition but is not essential.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no details about the response_format parameter. The parameter's own description covers its allowed values, but per the rubric, the tool description should compensate for low schema coverage—it doesn't.

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 uses a specific verb (get) with a precise resource (Godot Engine version, build info, mode, and project path). It tells the agent exactly what data is returned, though it doesn't distinguish it from siblings like godot_get_project_settings purely by reading the description.

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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description never explains when this tool is appropriate over sibling tools that also deal with project or engine state, leaving the agent without routing context.

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