get_uid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly implies a non-destructive read and discloses a version compatibility limit (4.4+), but it does not state whether the tool reads an existing .uid file, generates one on demand, or how it behaves when the file has no UID. The ambiguity between returning a UID string versus a .uid file path is a meaningful undisclosed behavioral trait.

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?

A single 17-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then appends the version qualifier as a parenthetical. There is zero filler and every word earns its place; the description is neither bloated nor under-specified in length.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool, the core action and version constraint are present and adequate. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return format (UID string vs. .uid file path) and error behavior for files without UIDs. These omissions leave the agent guessing about the invocation result, making the description minimally viable but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3: both `projectPath` and `filePath` already have meaning in the schema. The description adds only the version constraint ('4.4+') that ties to `projectPath` and echoes 'specific file' for `filePath`, without adding format, syntax, or resolution details. It neither compensates for a gap nor adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('UID for a specific file'), and a context ('in a Godot project, for Godot 4.4+'). It contrasts implicitly with the sibling `update_project_uids` (get vs. update) and with `list_project_files` (one file's UID vs. listing). It loses a point because it never explicitly names an alternative and doesn't clarify whether the return is a UID string or a .uid file path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related siblings like `update_project_uids`, state prerequisites (project must be Godot 4.4+, file must already have a UID), or provide any when-not-to-use signals. The only implied signal is the version qualifier '4.4+', which is a constraint rather than tool-selection guidance.

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