qa

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

Beyond the all-false annotations, the description discloses meaningful side effects: it auto-installs the bridge, runs the game, executes state-mutating steps (set/call/watch/monitor), and writes report files to ~/.godot-mcp/qa-reports/. It also notes the call-method whitelist (GODOT_MCP_BRIDGE_EXTRA_METHODS) and the RCE-avoidance design of step_until. Missing an explicit overview of what the sync run returns, so not a 5.

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 and then methodically enumerates step types, assertion guidance, async mode, and report location. It is dense but stays on-topic; the single run-on enumeration of step types is the only minor structural weakness.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description covers the orchestration flow well, but it does not say what a sync 'run' returns beyond the existence of report artifacts, nor the result shapes of status/report/diff. With no output schema to fill that gap, this is a noticeable completeness deficiency.

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 parameters are already fully documented and the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds only a high-level step-type list and pointers to 'schema 字段 description' rather than new semantic value beyond what the schema already says.

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 (编排/orchestrate) and resource (QA test suites), and lays out a clear end-to-end pipeline: spec → bridge install → run game → step execution → report + regression diff. This makes it unmistakably distinguishable from sibling tools like validation or screenshot.

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 real operational context: async background execution managed via status/cancel, and an implicit hint that large suites should go through spec_path rather than inline spec. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use this when you need automated multi-step game testing, not one-off assertions'), leaving usage as largely implied.

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