get_node_signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that the connections[].target value is scene-root-relative, that 'root' means a self-connection, and that it errors when the node is not found. These are useful behavioral facts beyond the annotation, though return-shape detail is partly redundant with the output schema.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the routing guideline first, then adds format detail. Dense and mostly earned, though the path-format parenthetical is long enough to slightly strain readability.

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 read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, when to call it, the path-format quirk that could otherwise cause errors, and the error case. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by tying the output's target field format to the targetNodePath argument that connect_signal/disconnect_signal accept, explaining that no path conversion is needed.

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: list signals defined on a node plus their current connections. It clearly distinguishes itself from connect_signal/disconnect_signal by describing a read/inspection role rather than a mutation.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'before connect_signal/disconnect_signal to verify signal/method names', naming both alternatives and the condition that selects this tool. No inference required.

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