Get Project Info

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a read operation with no destructive side effects. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already provide, such as what 'detailed information' includes or how the project is located. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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, short sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded with the main action, though the phrase 'detailed information' is somewhat vague and duplicates the general idea already present in the title.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not, however, clarify how this tool differs from godot_get_project_settings or what kind of 'detailed information' is returned, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among siblings.

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 covers the single parameter fully with a description: 'Optional path to project.godot file (defaults to finding it)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about the Godot project.' It is not a tautology and is understandable on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling godot_get_project_settings, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_get_project_settings or godot_get_file_info. The description only states what it does, with no context about when it is the appropriate choice. The optional project_path parameter could imply usage context, but the description does not explain it.

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