get_godot_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'reads' a version, implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not disclose details such as the return format, possible errors (e.g., Godot not found), or whether it uses the default installation or the provided binary path. It adds minimal context beyond the name but is not misleading.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('Read') and the target ('installed Godot version'), making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to clarify the purpose of the parameter and the tool's behavior when the parameter is omitted, which leaves some ambiguity for a complete understanding. The description is adequate for basic use but incomplete for edge cases.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter 'godotBinary' with 0% coverage from the description, and the description does not explain the parameter at all. The parameter name gives a weak hint that it might be a path to the Godot binary, but the agent is left without guidance on how to use it or what happens if omitted. With low schema coverage and no compensation from the description, this is a significant gap.

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's function with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the installed Godot version'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifically targeting the Godot version, which is unique among the siblings.

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 the tool is used when the installed Godot version is needed, but it does not provide explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives. There are no direct sibling version tools, so the usage context is somewhat clear, but the description lacks any exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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