godot_run_tests

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 tool returns test results including pass/fail counts and failures, which adds some context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on execution behavior (e.g., whether it runs tests synchronously, potential side effects, or error handling), leaving gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds return value information in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential context without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks details on behavioral aspects like execution flow or error conditions. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return formats more thoroughly, but it provides a basic overview.

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 100% description coverage, providing full documentation for all 4 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. This 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 specific action ('Run GUT (Godot Unit Test) tests') and resource ('for a Godot project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like godot_export or godot_run_scene. It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 for testing Godot projects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_check_errors or godot_run_scene. There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving usage inferred rather than clearly defined.

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