run_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain whether this launches a windowed game, runs headless, blocks until exit, or requires a project path. The behavior of the tool is virtually undisclosed beyond the action of running.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified. It does not leverage the available space to clarify behavior or usage, making this under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how parameters interact (e.g., whether headless and debug are mutually exclusive). The description fails to cover essential context.

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 100%, and each parameter has a short description (e.g., 'Run with debugger', 'Specific scene to run'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the action clearly ('Run the Godot project') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like editor_play, launch_editor, or editor_run_specific_scene, which also run projects or scenes.

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 mention prerequisites, whether the editor must be running, or that stop_project is the matching termination tool. The usage context is entirely absent.

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