godot_run_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that execution is 'non-headless, will open a window' - important runtime behavior. However, it doesn't mention what happens on timeout, whether the tool blocks until scene completion, error handling, or resource cleanup. For a tool that launches graphical applications, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the critical behavioral detail about window opening. Every word earns its place with no redundancy 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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the core purpose and key runtime behavior but doesn't address error conditions, return values, or integration considerations. Given the complexity of launching graphical applications, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('Run a specific scene') and resource ('Godot project'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's 'non-headless, will open a window' - which differentiates it from test-running or headless execution tools. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context through 'non-headless, will open a window' which suggests this is for visual testing/demo purposes rather than automated testing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like godot_run_tests or godot_export, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites for usage.

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