godot_stop_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a precondition (an editor connection and a running scene) but says nothing about what 'stop' destroys, whether unsaved runtime state is lost, what happens if nothing is playing, or whether the call blocks.

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 sentence, zero filler, action and scope front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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?

For a one-parameter control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description states the action but omits the outcome of stopping, error/failure conditions, and any indication of what the call returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the single projectPath parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for a well-covered schema applies.

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 gives a specific verb (stop) plus resource (the currently running scene) and a scoping detail (from the connected Godot editor). An agent can distinguish it from godot_play_scene and godot_open_scene, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'currently running' implies the precondition that a scene must already be playing, which is weak but real usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as godot_play_scene or godot_editor_status.

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