godot_check_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation ('Check... without running the game'), which is appropriate for a static analysis tool. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file system access, performance characteristics, or error handling behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides good context about what the tool does and its non-execution nature. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., error list, success/failure status) or potential limitations, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'project_path' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without providing additional parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('Check') and resource ('Godot project'), specifying what it checks for ('parse errors and syntax issues') and what it doesn't do ('without running the game'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like godot_run_scene and godot_run_tests by emphasizing it's a static analysis tool rather than execution.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Check a Godot project for parse errors and syntax issues') and implicitly distinguishes it from execution tools by stating 'without running the game.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings for different scenarios.

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