get_export_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It specifies what information is returned and implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., missing Godot installation) or state that it has no side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, listing the exact data returned. 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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose and output for a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema. It could arguably specify the return format, but the listed items give sufficient context. Minor gap: no context on when to use or error conditions.

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?

With zero parameters, the description needs to explain nothing about input semantics. The schema is empty, so there is no gap. Baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool retrieves export environment information and enumerates three specific items (Godot executable, project path, export templates directory), distinguishing it from siblings like list_export_presets and export_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?

The description implies usage via its name and purpose but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over list_export_presets or get_android_preset_info.

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