godot_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it delivers: it discloses fresh probes, stale cache reporting, bounded diagnostic windows, that it does not write project content, that test scripts are responsible for their own side effects, and the exact verdict types. This is highly transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each paragraph adds value: purpose/behavior, optional test running with a side-effect warning, and verdict/response semantics. No wasted sentences.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the orchestration behavior, optional test integration, safety guarantees, and verdict meanings, leaving no major gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds some context for run_tests (invokes the in-editor runner) and mentions optional filters, but does not substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Verify live Godot health with an explicit, evidence-based verdict.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like test_run by framing itself as an orchestration tool that does not write project content.

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 when to use the tool (e.g., 'Set run_tests=True to also invoke the existing in-editor runner') but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools like test_run or state when not to use it. Usage context is present but no clear exclusions or alternatives are named.

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