Get Project Settings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reiterates 'read-only', with no contradiction. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotation: editor_plugins_enabled mirrors res:// paths from the [editor_plugins] section, and MCP cannot write that section because plugin toggling is user-controlled in the editor. This clarifies data provenance and mutation limits for a specific output field.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by explaining a potentially confusing output field (editor_plugins_enabled) and a write-limit caveat. Compact and efficient, with no filler.

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 an output schema present and a single optional parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and the one notable behavioral nuance. It does not state the default behavior when project_path is null, but the schema's 'Optional' label plus default:null adequately covers that. Nothing critical is missing.

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% — project_path is already documented as 'Optional path to project.godot' with a null default. The description confirms the source file but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('project settings from project.godot'), and the read-only nature of the operation. It is clear and self-contained. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from plausible siblings like godot_get_project_info or godot_read_script, though naming project.godot as the source file provides meaningful disambiguation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named despite ~40 siblings. The caveat about editor_plugins_enabled does imply a capability boundary — the tool surfaces plugin state but cannot modify it — which hints at when an agent should not expect this tool to change plugin configuration. This is implied usage context rather than explicit routing.

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