signal_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only explains what the tool does and the parameters, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing connections), prerequisites, error conditions, or return values. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then provides a 'Category: Signal' line, followed by a structured list of arguments. Every sentence is relevant and adds value. It is concise without being overly terse.

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?

The tool has 6 required parameters and an output schema (not shown in input). The description covers parameter semantics but does not mention the return value or success/failure indicators. Since an output schema exists, the agent can infer return structure, but the description lacks completeness regarding behavioral outcomes.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by providing brief explanations for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'Path to the Godot project directory'). While helpful, the descriptions are basic and could be more detailed (e.g., format constraints, validity checks). This meets the baseline requirement.

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 action: 'Connect a signal from one node to a method on another node.' It specifies the verb ('connect'), resource ('signal', 'method'), and structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like signal_disconnect, signal_list_connections, and signal_list_node_signals.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to connect a signal to a method), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. No comparison with sibling tools or context of use is given.

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