godot_scene_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden but delivers almost none — no statement that it is read-only, whether it walks the whole node tree or only the requested node, how large a listing may be, or whether the scene must be open/valid. "Inspect" weakly implies a read, but that is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the object of inspection appears first. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

Scene inspection spanning nodes, resources, scripts, and signals is a broad, potentially large-output operation, yet with no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters the single sentence leaves the agent guessing about return shape and scope. Considerably more detail is required at this complexity level.

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 two parameters and did not. It never clarifies that "path" is the required scene path or what "node" does (scope to a subtree? a node path?), even though that distinction changes the call substantially.

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 uses a specific verb ("Inspect") with a named resource ("project scene") and enumerates the inspected content types: nodes, resources, scripts, and signals. This is sufficient to distinguish it from godot_scene_patch (mutation) and godot_validate_scene (validation), though it never explicitly names the contrasting siblings such as godot_resource_inspect.

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 on when to choose this over godot_resource_inspect or godot_project_info, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. A reader must infer that this summarizes a scene while its siblings inspect a resource or the whole project.

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