check_project

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

The description discloses the headless editor mode and diagnostic return, but lacks detail on side effects, whether it modifies project state, or what specific diagnostics are included. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the essential action and result without any unnecessary words. It earns its place perfectly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and usage context, but it only offers the vague 'parser/runtime diagnostics.' It is incomplete for a tool that executes a headless Godot process, lacking details on parameters, side effects, and output format.

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 50% (projectPath has a description, timeoutMs does not). The tool description adds no parameter information whatsoever, failing to compensate for the missing timeoutMs description or clarify how parameters affect behavior.

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 action ('Run Godot in headless editor mode') and the output ('return parser/runtime diagnostics'). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like run_project or launch_editor.

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 checking project diagnostics but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent.

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