scene_instantiate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that it instances a scene as a child and returns success/error, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it modify the scene file on disk?), required environment (Godot editor running?), error handling, or constraints (e.g., cannot instance itself). This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 concise, with a single-line purpose statement followed by a structured list of arguments and returns. No redundant information. It front-loads the core function and uses minimal words, earning its place.

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 complexity (scene instantiation in Godot) and that annotations are absent, the description covers the basics but is missing critical context: error scenarios, whether the operation is transient or persistent, and output schema details (though an output schema exists, it is not shown). The return description is vague. Adequate but with gaps.

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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all five parameters, including examples (e.g., 'scenes/player.tscn') and default values. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it does not specify path format constraints (absolute vs. relative) or validation rules.

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 'Instance a scene as a child node in another scene', providing a specific verb and resource. It also lists the category 'Scene', and the parameter names and descriptions make the tool's function unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'scene_create' or 'node_add'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., target scene must be open), when not to use it, or comparison to other tools like 'node_add' or 'runtime_add_scene_instance'. The description is purely operational.

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