Summarize bounded nodes in the currently open Godot scene to get a quick overview of its structure.
Summarize bounded nodes in the scene currently open for editing in Godot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about scope ('bounded nodes', 'scene currently open for editing') but does not describe output details or edge cases. With annotations covering side-effect behavior, this level of added context merits a 3.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to meaning: 'Summarize' (action), 'bounded nodes' (object), 'scene currently open for editing in Godot' (context). It is appropriately concise.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. It clarifies the prerequisite that a scene must be open for editing, but it does not explain what 'bounded nodes' means or what the summary includes, relying on the output schema for that. Minor gap, but generally sufficient.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema already shows an empty object, so no information is missing.
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 a specific action ('Summarize') and resource ('bounded nodes in the scene currently open for editing in Godot'). It effectively communicates scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'worldkit_selected_nodes' or 'worldkit_status', so it stops short of full sibling distinction.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without any 'use when' or 'instead of' hints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.