project

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

The description clearly lists mutating actions (run, stop, export, settings_set) and read-only ones (info, version, settings_get). While annotations indicate non-readonly (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), the action descriptions align with these traits and add specificity about state changes.

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 compact, using a terse list format with parameter arrows. It efficiently conveys the tool's dispatching nature, though the parentheses and dash list could be slightly streamlined.

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 description lacks output details for actions like info, version, or settings_get, which would help the agent understand return values. Given no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return types. Annotations are minimal, so additional behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by mapping which parameters are required for each action, e.g., '(key -> project_path)' for settings_get, clarifying the action-dependent usage beyond the schema's enum-only constraint.

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 explicitly states it covers Godot project operations and enumerates seven distinct actions (info, version, run, stop, settings_get, settings_set, export), each with clear purpose. This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on other aspects like animation, audio, etc.

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 specifies required and optional parameters for each action in a structured list, guiding the agent on parameter usage. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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