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 for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'detect' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify the return format, error conditions, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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, focused sentence that fully covers the tool's purpose with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.

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 tool's extremely low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the tool's function. Adding the return type (e.g., 'returns a version string') would make it fully complete, but the current level is adequate for an agent to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and provides no constraints. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It correctly avoids inventing 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 uses a specific verb ('detect') and a clear resource ('installed Godot version'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting version detection, which no other tool does.

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 the installed Godot version but provides no explicit guidance on when to call it or mention of alternatives. Since it is a unique tool, there are no exclusions to note, but the context is implied rather than stated.

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