run_project

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 does disclose two key behaviors: the project runs in the background (non-blocking) and stdout/stderr are captured. However, it omits critical details such as how to access the captured output, whether the process can be managed or stopped, and any side effects like killing an existing run. This is a meaningful disclosure but still incomplete.

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, efficient sentence: 'Run a Godot project in the background and capture stdout/stderr.' It is front-loaded with the primary action, contains no redundant words, and every word adds value.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't mention how to retrieve the captured output (via get_debug_output), how to stop the project (via stop_project), or what the tool returns (e.g., process ID, status). The existence of many project-management siblings underscores the need for more contextual guidance.

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 50%, with scene and projectPath having descriptions but headless and godotBinary being undocumented. The description does not mention any parameters, so it fails to compensate for the gap. It does not explain the purpose of headless mode or the godotBinary field, leaving the agent without guidance for these parameters.

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 purpose: 'Run a Godot project in the background and capture stdout/stderr.' It uses a specific verb ('Run'), specifies the resource ('Godot project'), and adds unique scope ('in the background and capture stdout/stderr') that distinguishes it from siblings like launch_editor (which opens the editor) and check_project (which analyzes).

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 when to use this tool (when you need to run a project and capture its output), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_debug_output for retrieving the captured output or stop_project for halting a running project. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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