godot_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful after adding new files,' which adds some context about timing, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's destructive (e.g., overwrites existing assets), rate limits, or what the import process entails (e.g., formats supported, error handling). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (importing assets, likely a mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage timing but misses behavioral details like side effects or return values. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, it should provide more context to be fully complete.

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 has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a clear definition for 'project_path.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already covers, such as explaining how the path is used or format requirements. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose as 'Import/reimport assets in a Godot project,' specifying both the action (import/reimport) and resource (assets in Godot project). It distinguishes from siblings like godot_check_errors or godot_run_scene by focusing on asset management rather than error checking or execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from godot_export, which might also involve asset handling.

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 for usage with 'Useful after adding new files,' indicating when to use this tool. It implies an alternative workflow (not using it if no new files are added), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like godot_check_errors for validation.

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