run_project

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It says 'capture output' but does not specify what output is captured (stdout, logs, errors), whether execution is blocking, or if it launches a window. This vagueness leaves critical behavioral details unaddressed.

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?

One short sentence with no fluff, efficiently conveying the core action. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of running a project (e.g., blocking behavior, output format, lifecycle), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to retrieve captured output or if the tool is asynchronous, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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 description coverage is 100%; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions ('Optional: Specific scene to run' and 'Path to the Godot project directory'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run the Godot project and capture output' clearly states the verb (run) and resource (Godot project), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'launch_editor' (launches editor) and 'stop_project' (stops running project).

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 (e.g., 'launch_editor' for editing, 'get_debug_output' for retrieving output separately). The description is purely functional.

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