Get MCP workspace root

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the workspace is a sandbox, that all writes/downloads are confined to it, and that changing GODOT_MCP_ROOT and restarting the server alters that root. This is meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: the sandbox definition, the path constraint, the environment/restart caveat, and the return summary. No filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 parameterless read-only getter with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, why the workspace root matters, and the only configuration dependency that changes its result.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is fully self-descriptive with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is required, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Return the sandbox directory for this server.' This unambiguously describes what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like godot_get_project_settings or godot_get_project_info, which target other kinds of project data.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: every project path, write, and Asset Library download must stay under this tree, so the agent knows this tool is relevant before path-dependent operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed for a root-query tool.

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