project

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

The description discloses mutating actions (run, stop, export, settings_set) and non-mutating ones (info, version, logs, settings_get). Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context about process management (launching/stopping games, reading logs). It could be more explicit about side effects, such as that 'run' starts a game and 'stop' kills it.

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?

The description is concise and structured as a list of actions with parameter notes in parentheses. It front-loads the action list, making key information quickly scannable. However, the notation might be slightly cryptic for new users (e.g., '->' for required/optional), and the overall length is appropriate.

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's complexity (8 parameters, 8 actions, output schema present), the description covers all actions and their parameter dependencies. It explains the purpose of each action and how parameters relate to it. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gaps: no explanation of what 'project metadata' includes for info, or what happens if run is called with no scene_path.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by grouping parameters per action and indicating which are required vs optional (e.g., 'key -> project_path' for settings_get). This contextualizes the schema beyond raw property definitions.

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 states it handles 'Godot project operations' and enumerates 8 distinct actions (info, version, run, logs, stop, settings_get, settings_set, export) with specific purposes. Each action is described with a verb and resource, making it easy for an AI agent to understand what the tool offers.

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 description provides a compact guide on which parameters are required or optional for each action, and notes the default behavior for logs (most recently started PID). However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over sibling tools like 'editor', 'nodes', or 'scripts', which may overlap in functionality.

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