godot_select_instance

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it changes the routing target for subsequent calls, which implies a stateful operation. It also mentions the environment variable requirement. With annotations all false, this adds meaningful context about side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose, effect, and prerequisite. No wasted words; all information is immediately useful.

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 simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral outcome and prerequisite. It does not explain return values or error cases, but those are not critical for a selection tool and are not provided in an output schema either.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully described. The description merely repeats that id or project_path can be used, while the schema already explains the precedence and source of instance_id. Thus the description adds little beyond the schema, but it is not deficient.

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 selects a Godot instance by id or project_path and that subsequent calls route to that instance. It uses the specific verb '选择' and identifies the resource (Godot instance) and the effect (routing). This distinguishes it from siblings like godot_list_instances which lists instances.

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 a clear prerequisite: requires GODOT_MCP_MULTI_INSTANCE=true. It implies usage when multi-instance selection is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like godot_list_dynamic_routes, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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