project_config

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it retrieves configuration. It adds critical context: names are bare strings, no validation, values resolve correctly from ProjectSettings, and requires a Godot binary. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single paragraph but is front-loaded with the purpose and contains only essential information. Every sentence adds value, from the listing of items to the caution about validation. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description fully covers what the tool returns, its prerequisites (Godot binary), and the behavioral implications of the returned values. No gaps remain for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details but instead explains the return values and their significance, adding value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly lists the exact resources retrieved: autoload singletons, input action names, class_name globals, and main scene. It distinguishes itself from sibling GDScript and debugging tools by focusing on project configuration.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Check names here before writing them.' It explains the context of compiler silence and runtime no-ops, providing a clear reason to use this tool for verification. It implies no alternatives among siblings.

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