create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creating a project.godot file but omits critical side effects: it doesn't state that createMainScene defaults to true, whether existing files are overwritten, where the project is created by default, or whether additional files are generated. The term 'minimal' is vague and could mislead.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's parameter richness.

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 four parameters and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, the meaning of a 'minimal' project, or the effects of the parameters. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete.

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 only 25% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description provides no explanation of the 'name', 'renderer', or 'createMainScene' parameters, nor does it clarify how they influence the created project. It adds marginal value beyond the schema and does not compensate for the low 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 action ('Create') and the resource ('minimal Godot 4 project'), with a specific detail (project.godot file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_scene and create_script, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, whether it should be used before other actions, or situations where a full project template might be preferred. The intended use must be inferred from context.

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