godot_script_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Bounded' implies a result cap but the limit and truncation behavior are unexplained, and it doesn't confirm the operation is read-only or describe what diagnostics contain. A static analyzer is presumably safe, but the agent must infer that.

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. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of omitting useful detail rather than trimming waste.

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?

For a diagnostics tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description never indicates what the returned diagnostics look like (severity levels, line numbers, counts) or how 'bounded' manifests. An agent calling it cannot anticipate the response shape.

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 coverage is 0%, so the sole `path` parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by implying path refers to a GDScript or C# source file, constraining the expected file type, but gives no format, relative-vs-absolute, or resolution guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return bounded static diagnostics') and names the input domain (GDScript or C# file), which distinguishes it from runtime-oriented siblings like godot_runtime_errors and godot_runtime_logs. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The word 'static' hints that this differs from runtime error tools, but the description never states that alternative or the conditions that select it.

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