create_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new Godot scene file,' which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires the editor to be running, what permissions are needed, if it overwrites existing files, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple creation tool, with every word earning its place. This is an example of excellent 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 the complexity of creating a scene file (a mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like error handling, side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies project state.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Path to the Godot project directory' for projectPath). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how scenePath interacts with projectPath or common use cases for rootNodeType. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new Godot scene file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_scene' or 'add_node', but the verb 'Create' versus 'save' or 'add' provides some implicit distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'save_scene' and 'add_node' that might handle related scene operations, there's no indication of prerequisites, context (e.g., whether the project must be open), or when to choose this over other tools. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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