godot_validate_scene

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

ReadOnlyHint already signals a safe read-only operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the return object shape, the distinction between errors and warnings, and the fact that warnings are auto-fixed by cure on export. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight and front-loaded with its purpose, then gives a compact check list and return shape. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly documents the return value and its interpretation. It also lists all checks performed and explains the warning behavior. The only notable gap is the undocumented only_selected parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the only_selected parameter, but it does not mention it at all. The schema title 'Only Selected' and default false give some hint, but the description adds no meaning beyond that.

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 a specific action ('Validate scene'), a specific target context ('Godot 4.x glTF export'), and names its role as a gate before godot_export_glb. It also lists concrete checks, making it easy to distinguish from mesh-level validators like validate_mesh or diag_validate_armature.

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 explicitly says to run this before godot_export_glb and instructs the user to fix errors when can_export is false. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling validators such as validate_mesh or uv_validate, but the Godot export context provides clear placement in a workflow.

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