Find Godot Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the search-by-project.godot behavior, and the parameter description discloses the two-phase algorithm (walk-up first, fallback to workspace scan), which is genuine behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. 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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler: it names the verb, the resource, and the method in order. The more detailed search algorithm is appropriately pushed into the parameter description rather than cluttering the main description.

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?

For a simple, read-only tool with a single optional parameter that is fully documented and an output schema present, the definition is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state what happens when no project.godot is found (failure/empty result), but the output schema likely covers the return shape, and this is not critical for a safe read-only operation.

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 the baseline is 3. The parameter description goes beyond the baseline by explaining the default (MCP workspace root), the optional upward walk, and the fallback scan behavior. This adds real semantic meaning about how the path affects the search, earning a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('the Godot project root'), and the distinguishing method ('searching for project.godot'). This clearly separates it from siblings like godot_find_by_pattern (pattern-based file search) and godot_list_projects (listing projects), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: call this when you need to locate a Godot project root. The parameter description adds useful context about the search strategy (walk-up first, then workspace scan), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over related tools like godot_find_by_pattern or godot_get_project_info, and no exclusions are given.

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