godot_export

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 mentions the export action but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites output files), requires specific permissions, has side effects on the project, or includes error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs file system operations.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool that performs export operations (potentially involving file system changes and platform-specific builds) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, platform support, or dependencies like export preset configuration, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Export') and resource ('a Godot project') with the specific target ('to a specific platform'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'godot_import' (import vs export) and 'godot_run_scene' (run vs export), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'godot_check_errors' or 'godot_run_tests', nor does it mention prerequisites such as having a configured export preset. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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