get_uid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing resources, error cases, or whether the UID is returned directly or wrapped in a response object, leaving some gaps.

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 redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is so brief that it omits potentially useful context, though this is more a completeness than conciseness issue.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the UID is used, or any operational context. The simple one-liner is insufficient for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 only 50%: projectPath is described, but the required resourcePath has no description. The tool description does not clarify the meaning or format of resourcePath, nor does it explain how projectPath relates to the operation. It fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 'Read a resource UID using Godot's resource database' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource, and indicates the underlying mechanism. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_project_uids or list_resources, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions. The description simply states the function without contextualizing its place among the many sibling tools.

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