godot_run_project

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

Annotations are all false (non-readonly, non-openworld, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds 'debug mode' context and the timeout param implies console log capture, which supplements the sparse annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loads the core action and scope. No wasted words, though the phrasing could be slightly richer without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, and key runtime behavior (debug mode, console logs, timeout) is captured. Missing potential failure modes but adequate overall.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (scene_path, extra_arguments, response_format, timeout_seconds), so schema coverage is high. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Specifies a clear verb ('Launch'), resource ('project or scene'), and qualifier ('in debug mode via CLI'). Distinguishable from siblings like godot_run_tests and godot_export_project, though 'via CLI' is slightly redundant.

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 such as godot_run_tests (test execution) or godot_export_project (build export). No exclusions or alternative references provided.

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