Godot MCP Bridge

by Farraskuy

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Disambiguation2/5
With 167 tools, significant overlap exists between generic utilities (add_node) and specific variants (add_mesh_instance, add_audio_player). Multiple property accessors (get_node_properties, batch_get_properties, get_game_node_properties) operate in different contexts but have minimal descriptions that fail to clarify when to use each, causing high risk of misselection.
Naming Consistency3/5
While predominantly using snake_case verb_noun patterns, inconsistencies emerge with tilemap_* prefixing, godot_* prefixing for connection tools, and mixed verb choices (add/create/remove/delete). Some tools use noun_verb ordering (uid_to_project_path) while others use verb_noun, and similar operations lack parallel structure (cross_scene_set_property vs batch_set_property).
Tool Count1/5
At 167 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Despite Godot's complexity, this quantity will overwhelm agent context windows and selection logic. A more coherent design would use fewer tools with parameters rather than discrete endpoints for every operation.
Completeness4/5
The set provides extensive coverage across Godot subsystems including scene management, scripting, animation, audio, physics, UI, and testing. While the granularity is inconsistent (some operations have specific tools while others rely on generic ones), there appear to be few functional gaps for core game engine workflows.
Average 2.3/5 across 167 of 167 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the tool scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
Latest release: v0.1.0
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
View server inspector
This server provides 100 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Report a security issue
Are you the author?
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not explain the 'compatibility' nature, side effects of adding transitions, or the significance of additionalProperties: true allowing arbitrary extra parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without earning its place—it provides a label without explanation or actionable context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the flexible schema (additionalProperties: true), unexplained parameter names, and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent would be unable to invoke this tool correctly without significant external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description completely fails to compensate. It does not mention timeoutMs or autoConnect, nor explain why connection-oriented parameters exist on a state machine tool, leaving the agent unable to infer valid inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description tautologically restates the tool name ('Add state machine transition') with only the cryptic parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' added. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like add_state_machine_state or explain what distinguishes a 'compatibility' transition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_state_machine_state), nor what 'Compatibility tool' implies for usage patterns. The agent cannot determine prerequisites or deprecation status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not explain what inputs are compared (file paths, buffers, current screen?), what the comparison methodology is, what the return value or output format is, or what the side effects might be.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely brief (two fragments), the description sacrifices essential information for brevity. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical consumes space without conveying actionable meaning, and the front-loaded verb fails to establish context for the parameters or return value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completely inadequate for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. Critical missing information includes: the source of screenshots being compared, the comparison algorithm, success/failure criteria, and the meaning of the 'compatibility' designation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), and the description adds no clarification. It is unclear what timeoutMs refers to (comparison duration? connection timeout?) or what autoConnect connects to, leaving the parameters effectively undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name with a verb ('Compare screenshots'), constituting a near-tautology. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained, failing to clarify what kind of comparison is performed (pixel diff, perceptual, etc.) or distinguish from sibling screenshot tools like get_game_screenshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assert_screen_text or manual inspection. The cryptic 'Compatibility tool' label hints at potential deprecation or backward compatibility usage, but fails to explain what the modern alternative might be or when this specific tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not explain what 'find' entails (scanning current scene? project-wide search?), whether the operation is read-only (unclear given the autoConnect parameter), what the 'compatibility' label implies, or what return format to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (4 words), this represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. The '(Compatibility tool)' aside consumes space without earning its place through explanation. The description lacks structural front-loading of critical constraints or behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not address the relationship to sibling signal tools, the implications of the timeout/autoConnect parameters, or the meaning of the 'compatibility' designation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect), yet the description offers no compensation. It fails to explain what timeoutMs is waiting for, what autoConnect connects to, or why a 'find' operation would have an autoConnect feature, leaving critical semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find signal connections' is a tautology that restates the tool name (find_signal_connections) without adding specificity. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained, failing to clarify scope or distinguish from siblings like get_signals, connect_signal, or analyze_signal_flow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_signals (which also retrieves signal information) or analyze_signal_flow. No mention of prerequisites, scene requirements, or why this is labeled a 'compatibility' tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but reveals nothing about return format (files, nodes, resource paths?), side effects, performance characteristics, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies regarding legacy behavior or deprecation status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief at only four words plus a parenthetical, the description is inefficiently terse—wasting no words but also failing to front-load critical information. The 'Compatibility tool' aside is cryptic and unexplained, adding confusion rather than value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool dealing with scene dependencies (a complex concept in Godot involving packed scenes, external resources, and script references), the description is woefully incomplete. With no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters, the description provides insufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect). The description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control, their units (milliseconds for timeout), or why one would adjust the autoConnect boolean.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get scene dependencies' is a near-tautology of the tool name get_scene_dependencies, merely restating the verb and resource. While the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' adds minimal context, it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like detect_circular_dependencies or analyze_scene_complexity, and does not explain what constitutes a 'scene dependency' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_circular_dependencies, find_node_references, or get_scene_tree. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at specific use cases but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to explain side effects, idempotency, what happens to existing groups, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies regarding legacy behavior or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The single sentence provides almost no actionable information beyond the tool name, wasting the opportunity to front-load critical usage constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completely inadequate for a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. The description fails to explain the input model (how groups are specified), the output, or the 'compatibility' nature, leaving the agent with no operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but provides no parameter details. It does not explain why timeoutMs and autoConnect exist for a group-setting operation, nor does it document the additionalProperties pattern which likely carries the actual group data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set node groups' restates the tool name (tautology). The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' adds minimal context but fails to explain what node groups are, what 'setting' them entails, or how this differs from sibling get_node_groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active node or scene), or why it is marked as a 'compatibility' tool. The agent has no information to determine appropriate invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, placing the full burden of behavioral disclosure on the description. The description completely omits critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what specific animation details are returned, why timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters exist (suggesting network/connection behavior), and whether this queries the editor or runtime animation system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief at only 4 words plus a parenthetical, this represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. For a tool with undocumented parameters and no annotations, the extreme brevity indicates missing essential information rather than well-edited conciseness. Every sentence fails to earn its place due to lack of actionable content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of 2 undocumented parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain: (1) how to specify which animation to query, (2) what data structure is returned, (3) the connection-oriented nature implied by the parameters, or (4) the compatibility context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the two parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect). It fails entirely to mention either parameter, leaving their purpose (apparently related to connection management) completely undocumented. The agent has no guidance on what the timeout applies to or what auto-connect enables.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get animation details' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'get_animation_info' with a synonym. While it identifies the resource (animation) and action (get), it fails to specify what distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_animations or get_animation_tree_structure. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds minimal context without clarifying scope or purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_animations for enumeration vs. this for details). The '(Compatibility tool)' label implies a specific use case but fails to explain what 'compatibility' means or when this should be preferred over newer alternatives, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 nothing about side effects (does it modify the scene? create nodes?), return values, idempotency, or the implications of the 'Compatibility' label. The agent cannot determine if this is a safe operation or what state changes to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (6 words), which technically wastes no words, but it is 'too concise' to the point of being uninformative. The cryptic parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without adding clarity. Every sentence should earn its place; here, neither sentence earns sufficient value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 'setup' tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully inadequate. It omits what gets set up (existing node vs new node), the relationship between the parameters and the resulting behavior, and any Godot-specific context (e.g., NavigationAgent3D vs NavigationAgent2D). The description provides no more information than the function name itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (timeoutMs and autoConnect are undocumented in the schema), yet the description provides no compensation. It fails to explain what the timeout applies to, what autoConnect connects to, or what additional properties (additionalProperties: true) might be accepted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description restates the tool name with spaces added ('Set up navigation agent'), which is tautological. It adds '(Compatibility tool)' without explanation, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous—does it create, configure, or initialize a navigation agent? It fails to distinguish from sibling tool setup_navigation_region.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., setup_navigation_region), prerequisites for use, or when it should be avoided. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained jargon that could imply deprecation or legacy usage, but offers no actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not explain what an animation track is, prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing animation), side effects, return values, or what 'compatibility' implies for behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (4 words), it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag consumes space without providing actionable information. Every sentence should earn its place; this description fails to establish context or parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool interacting with animation systems (implied by siblings like create_animation, get_animation_info), the description is inadequate. With 2 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of animation track concepts, the description provides insufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect). The description fails to compensate by explaining what timeoutMs measures (connection timeout? animation duration?), what autoConnect connects to, or why these parameters exist for an animation track tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Add animation track') but provides minimal context. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'create_animation' or 'set_animation_keyframe', leaving ambiguity about whether this creates a new animation or adds a track to an existing one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained—if this indicates deprecation or legacy status, it should specify the preferred alternative, which it does not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses nothing about side effects (what happens if the bus exists), return values, authentication needs, or what 'compatibility' implies for behavior. For a state-mutating operation, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the description is under-specified rather than elegantly concise. The second sentence '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without earning it—lacking context, it confuses more than clarifies. The parameters and behavioral details are entirely omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a 2-parameter state-mutating tool with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain Godot-specific audio bus concepts, parameter interactions, or success/failure behaviors required for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (timeoutMs and autoConnect are undocumented), yet the description provides no compensatory information. It does not explain what the timeout applies to, what auto-connects to what, or provide usage examples for these two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Add') and resource ('audio bus'), but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is vague and unexplained. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'add_audio_bus_effect' or 'set_audio_bus', leaving ambiguity about which audio bus tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_audio_bus' or 'get_audio_bus_layout'. The 'Compatibility tool' note hints at special usage constraints but provides no actionable information about when/when-not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but offers only the cryptic note '(Compatibility tool)' without explaining what compatibility means, what side effects occur, or what the timeoutMs parameter controls. Mutation potential is implied by 'set up' but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two fragments) but this represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is under-explained and wastes potential space for actual behavioral description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Godot navigation tool with 2 parameters and implied node creation/configuration behavior, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the relationship between navigation regions and navigation meshes, the role of the parameters, or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description completely fails to compensate. Neither timeoutMs (timeout for what operation?) nor autoConnect (connect to what?) are explained, leaving critical parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set up navigation region' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the resource (navigation region), it fails to specify what 'set up' entails (creation, configuration, initialization) or distinguish from siblings like bake_navigation_mesh or setup_navigation_agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bake_navigation_mesh, setup_navigation_agent, or set_navigation_layers. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring an existing scene or specific node type).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet reveals nothing about side effects (disk persistence), safety (backup/undo capabilities), or return values. The cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' label suggests special behavior that is left completely undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief at only four words, this constitutes under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag consumes space without explanation, and the front-loading provides no actionable detail about the edit operation's nature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that presumably performs file mutation (high complexity), the description is inadequate. With zero schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and unexplained parameters, the agent lacks sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly or safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fails to compensate by explaining the purpose of 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters. These parameters suggest network or process-communication behavior (likely connecting to the Godot editor), which is critical context for a file-editing tool but is entirely absent from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core verb ('Edit') and resource ('shader file'), but is vague about the scope of editing (content vs. metadata) and fails to differentiate from siblings like 'create_shader', 'read_shader', or 'set_shader_param'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained jargon that adds no clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'set_shader_param' (for material parameters) or 'create_shader' (for new files). There are no stated prerequisites, such as whether the shader file must already exist, or warnings about potential overwrites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description doesn't clarify what 'diagnostics' are returned, whether this probes active navigation meshes, or what the 'autoConnect' parameter connects to. The 'Compatibility tool' label is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (4 words), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without explanation, and critical information about parameters and return values is absent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. For a diagnostics tool likely returning complex navigation mesh or pathfinding data, the lack of return value documentation or parameter semantics leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters. The description completely fails to compensate for this gap by explaining what these parameters control (e.g., connection timeouts, automatic server connection) or their operational impact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('navigation diagnostics'), providing minimal viable purpose. However, it fails to define what 'navigation' encompasses (pathfinding, mesh status, agent states) or distinguish from sibling tool 'get_navigation_path', leaving scope ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'get_navigation_path' or 'bake_navigation_mesh'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at specific use cases but offers no explanation of what compatibility scenarios warrant its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. The only behavioral hint is '(Compatibility tool)', which is opaque. No disclosure of what 'create' entails (instantiation in scene, memory implications), nor explanation of the 'additionalProperties': true allowance for extra particle properties.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief at two clauses, the description is insufficiently informative rather than efficiently concise. The '(Compatibility tool)' clause consumes space without earning its place due to lack of explanation. Critical information (parameter meanings, output behavior) is missing entirely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a node-creation tool with mysterious parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the parameter semantics, the compatibility aspect, or what properties can be passed via additionalProperties. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description completely omits parameter documentation. The parameters 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' appear unrelated to particle creation (suggesting connection/operation timeouts), creating confusion about the tool's actual mechanism. No compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the specific Godot node types created (GPUParticles2D/3D), but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the generic 'add_node' sibling or explain why specific particle creation tools exist alongside it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'add_node' or other particle-related siblings like 'apply_particle_preset'. The 'Compatibility tool' label suggests specific usage constraints (perhaps legacy support) but offers no explanation, leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure yet reveals nothing about side effects, return values, performance characteristics, or what 'compatibility' mode entails. The existence of timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters implies network or process behavior that remains unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (four words plus a parenthetical), this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable information beyond the tool name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and ambiguous purpose, the description is inadequate. A tool searching for script references in a game engine context requires clarification on scope (project-wide? scene-specific? external?) and return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by explaining either parameter. timeoutMs and autoConnect have defaults (5000ms/true) but no semantic explanation of what connection is being auto-established or what timeout behavior occurs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find script references' largely restates the tool name (find_script_references) without clarifying what constitutes a 'reference' or how this differs from siblings like find_nodes_by_script or find_node_references. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' adds minimal context but remains ambiguous regarding compatibility with what.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_nodes_by_script or search_in_files. The 'Compatibility tool' label suggests a specific use case but lacks explanation of when compatibility mode is necessary or preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It does not explain what 'compatibility tool' implies (limitations? deprecation?), what the return format is, or that this likely queries a running game instance (implied by autoConnect parameter). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (4 words plus parenthetical), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence earns its place, but the description lacks necessary information density for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what node groups are (Godot-specific concept), what the tool returns, or why 'compatibility' is relevant. The agent cannot determine if this retrieves groups for a specific node (no node identifier in schema) or global group definitions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining these parameters, their relationship to the tool's function (likely connecting to a game instance), or their default behaviors. Critical gap given the schema deficiency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get node groups' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name. While it identifies the resource type (node groups), it fails to specify scope (which node? all groups in project?) or distinguish from sibling 'set_node_groups'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds minimal context without explaining what compatibility refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_nodes_in_group' or 'set_node_groups'. The '(Compatibility tool)' label hints at potential deprecation or legacy use but does not clearly state when to prefer this over newer alternatives or what prerequisites (e.g., running game instance) are required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions '(Compatibility tool)' implying legacy behavior, but fails to explain mutation scope, persistence, side effects, or the significance of the timeoutMs/autoConnect parameters. Lacks disclosure of what the tool actually modifies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (4 words), but this brevity is not virtue—it sacrifices essential documentation. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without explanatory value, while critical parameter semantics and behavioral constraints are omitted entirely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists and annotations are absent, yet the description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the relationship between the generic timeoutMs/autoConnect parameters and blend tree node configuration. Inadequate for a tool with additionalProperties flexibility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect, and the description completely fails to compensate. Critically, the schema declares 'additionalProperties: true', indicating arbitrary configuration properties can be set, yet the description does not mention this extensible behavior or how to use it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the tool configures a 'blend tree node' (specific to animation systems), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_tree_parameter or create_animation_tree. However, 'Configure' is vague regarding which specific attributes are modified or what blend tree means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_tree_parameter or create_animation_tree. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' suggests special usage constraints but offers no explanation of what they are or when this should be preferred/avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose side effects (does this modify a file or session state?), persistence of the 'override,' or explain why this is marked as a compatibility tool. The timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters in the schema suggest connection behavior that is not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two fragments), which would be acceptable if information-dense, but the '(Compatibility tool)' aside wastes space without explanation. The front-loading is adequate but the severe underspecification given the schema complexity makes the brevity problematic rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides critically insufficient context. It does not explain the expected input format for font sizes, the role of the timeout/autoConnect parameters, or what the 'override' applies to. The mismatch between description text and schema structure leaves the agent without viable usage instructions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description completely fails to compensate. There is a severe disconnect between the stated purpose (setting font size) and the actual schema parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect). With additionalProperties: true, the description must specify what properties to pass for the font size operation, but it provides no parameter guidance whatsoever.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action (Set) and resource (theme font size override), but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained. It does not clarify the scope (which theme?) or distinguish from siblings like set_theme_constant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_theme_constant or create_theme. The '(Compatibility tool)' note hints at a specific use case but fails to explicitly state when this should be preferred or avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It offers only the minimal hint that this is a 'Compatibility tool' without explaining mutation scope, persistence, side effects on the theme resource, or the connection mechanism implied by the parameter names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (two fragments), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, the brevity represents an information gap rather than effective communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain the Godot editor connection context (evident from sibling tools like godot_connect), the role of timeoutMs/autoConnect, or the implications of setting a stylebox override.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to explain either parameter. The parameter names (timeoutMs, autoConnect) suggest connection-oriented behavior inconsistent with the theme-styling stated purpose, creating confusion that the description does not resolve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action ('Set theme stylebox override') with a specific verb and resource type, distinguishing it from siblings like set_theme_color or set_theme_font_size. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained jargon that obscures when to use this, and 'override' lacks context for agents unfamiliar with Godot theme systems.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus create_theme or other set_theme_* siblings. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at specific use cases but offers no explicit criteria for selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The only behavioral hint is '(Compatibility tool)' which suggests potential deprecation but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or atomicity. Does not clarify that the schema uses additionalProperties for the actual node/property parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two fragments), but given the complexity of the additionalProperties pattern, 0% schema coverage, and need for sibling differentiation, it is underspecified rather than efficiently concise. Every word earns its place, but there aren't enough words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, the additionalProperties anti-pattern, and numerous similar sibling tools, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation. Critical gaps include the parameter passing convention and differentiation from sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and uses additionalProperties: true to accept the actual node and property parameters, but the description fails to document this pattern or explain what parameters (node_path, property_name, value) should be passed via additionalProperties. Also does not explain timeoutMs or autoConnect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (update) and target (node property) but fails to distinguish from similar sibling tools like set_game_node_property, batch_set_property, and cross_scene_set_property. Does not clarify whether this targets editor or game runtime nodes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its numerous property-setting siblings. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' suggests legacy status but fails to explain what that means or recommend modern alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a batch operation affects multiple targets, but does not disclose whether operations are atomic, what happens if the filter matches zero nodes, or what the return value indicates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (six words), which is efficient but underspecified for a complex batch operation tool. The parenthetical note earns no clarity. Front-loaded structure is good, but content is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Severely incomplete given the tool's apparent complexity (batch mutations with flexible filtering via additionalProperties). No output schema, no parameter documentation, and no explanation of filter syntax or available property types leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate. It mentions 'filter' but the schema shows no filter parameter (only 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'), and does not explain that 'additionalProperties' likely contains the filter criteria and property values to set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action (batch set property) and mechanism (by filter), but lacks domain context (Godot nodes) and the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic without explanation of what compatibility is being maintained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'set_game_node_property', 'update_property', or 'cross_scene_set_property'. Does not clarify what constitutes a 'batch' scenario or when filtering is preferred over direct reference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but provides minimal behavioral context. The '(Compatibility tool)' note hints at legacy/deprecation status but is too vague to be useful. No mention of side effects, atomicity, or what happens to existing connections.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (4 words plus parenthetical). While not verbose, the '(Compatibility tool)' phrase is insufficiently informative to justify its inclusion. Structure is front-loaded but sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide comprehensive context. Instead, it offers only the minimal operation label. For a mutation tool affecting signal connections, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), yet the description compensates with zero explanation. The parameters' purposes are mysterious given the tool name—particularly 'autoConnect' defaulting to true for a disconnect operation—which demands explicit clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic operation ('Disconnect node signal') and identifies the domain (node-based signals, likely Godot engine). However, it fails to specify scope (disconnect all connections or specific ones?) and does not differentiate from sibling tool 'connect_signal' beyond the verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for disconnection, or relationship to the 'connect_signal' sibling. The cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical offers no actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to explain what 'unreferenced' means (orphaned files? dangling pointers?), what the tool returns (paths? resource IDs?), or whether it modifies state. The 'Compatibility tool' notation is cryptic without elaboration on behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (five words plus a parenthetical), but given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, this brevity becomes under-specification rather than efficient communication. The structure is simple but insufficiently informative for the complexity of the domain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a complex domain (Godot game engine), the description should explain return values, resource types scanned, and scope limitations. It provides none of this necessary context, leaving agents uncertain about what the tool returns or operates upon.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect), and the description makes no attempt to explain what these control (search timeout vs connection timeout? auto-connect to what?). The description completely fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Find unreferenced resources') but lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'resource' in the Godot context (assets, files, nodes?) and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_node_references' or 'find_script_references'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at context but remains unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_node_references' or 'get_scene_dependencies'. The '(Compatibility tool)' label suggests specific usage constraints but offers no explanation of what they are or when this should be preferred over non-compatibility alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '(Compatibility tool)' which hints at legacy or specific renderer context, but provides no details on what statistics are returned, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. The agent cannot determine if this is a safe read operation or what data structure to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (7 words), which technically avoids verbosity, but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment wastes limited space without providing actionable context. It is front-loaded with the action, but the extreme brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the tool's behavior, return values, and parameter purposes. It provides none of this. The 'Compatibility tool' label raises questions about deprecation or specific renderer requirements that are left unanswered, leaving the agent unprepared to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect), yet the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters do. The parameters appear to be transport-level settings rather than domain-specific filters for statistics, which is confusing and unexplained. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('project statistics'), but 'statistics' remains ambiguous (performance metrics? asset counts? code analysis?). It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_project_info, get_performance_monitors, or analyze_scene_complexity. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is jargon without explanation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 the numerous sibling retrieval tools (get_project_info, get_performance_monitors, etc.). The cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' label suggests a specific context but offers no explanation of when this compatibility is needed or preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to explain what gets destroyed, whether the operation is reversible, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies behaviorally. No information about return values or side effects is included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at only four words, but this conciseness crosses into under-specification. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic without elaboration, wasting the only additional context provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's relationship to the animation system, parameter purposes, or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage for both `timeoutMs` and `autoConnect` parameters, and the description offers no compensation by explaining what these parameters control or why removing an animation requires timeout/connection settings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The phrase 'Remove animation' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying scope or target resource. While '(Compatibility tool)' hints at legacy usage, it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like `add_animation_track` or `create_animation`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as `delete_node` (which could remove animated nodes) or animation-specific siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but reveals almost nothing about side effects, return values, or the meaning of 'Compatibility tool'. Fails to explain why a save operation has timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters, which suggests non-standard behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (4 words plus parenthetical), but the '(Compatibility tool)' remark wastes space without clarifying scope or deprecation status. Front-loaded but underspecified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Insufficient for a filesystem-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters. Missing: error conditions, overwrite behavior, and what 'compatibility' implies for the save format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for timeoutMs and autoConnect. Description compensates with zero information, leaving critical parameters undocumented. The additionalProperties: true flag is also not mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (save) and target (current scene), but 'current' is ambiguous (editor context vs runtime), and the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical introduces confusion without explanation. Does not distinguish from export_project or how it differs from implicit saving in other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus export_project, create_scene, or open_scene. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., unsaved changes) or when saving is prohibited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. '(Compatibility tool)' hints at backward compatibility usage but fails to explain what gets modified (project settings? scene nodes?), the purpose of 'additionalProperties: true', or what successful invocation returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (4 words), this is severe under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without providing actionable information, and no sentence explains the tool's actual mechanics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completely inadequate given zero schema coverage, missing output schema, and 'additionalProperties: true' suggesting complex parameter requirements. The description explains neither the navigation layer concept nor the compatibility context, leaving critical gaps for agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect', yet the description provides no compensation. Critically, it fails to document what properties are expected via 'additionalProperties: true', leaving the agent with no guidance on required inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Set') and resource ('navigation layers'), providing a basic verb+resource pairing. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling navigation tools like 'setup_navigation_region' or 'bake_navigation_mesh', and '(Compatibility tool)' is too vague to clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'setup_navigation_agent' or 'get_navigation_info'. No prerequisites, side effects, or workflow context is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. The 'Compatibility tool' note hints at behavioral traits (possibly deprecated or legacy) but is too vague to be actionable. It fails to disclose what additional properties are accepted (despite additionalProperties: true), error conditions, or mutation scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at one sentence plus a parenthetical. While not verbose, the '(Compatibility tool)' remark wastes space by being unexplained, and the front-loading doesn't prioritize the most critical information (the missing parameter schema).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits the expected gradient parameter format, the meaning of 'compatibility,' and how it integrates with the particle system workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for timeoutMs and autoConnect, plus explain what gradient data structure is expected via additionalProperties. It adds zero parameter semantics, leaving all inputs undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action ('Set') and target ('particle color gradient'), but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained. It does not clarify how this differs from sibling tools like set_particle_material or apply_particle_preset, leaving ambiguity about which particle tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_particle_material), nor prerequisites such as requiring an existing particle system. No 'when-not-to-use' or workflow context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but offers only the 'Compatibility tool' label as behavioral context. It does not explain scope (project-wide vs node-specific), persistence, side effects, or why the parameters include connection-oriented names (timeoutMs, autoConnect) seemingly unrelated to color values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at five words. No filler content—every word conveys information, though the brevity severely under-serves the tool's complexity given zero schema documentation and no output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for the domain complexity. Godot theming involves multiple property types (colors, constants, fonts, styles); this tool offers no explanation of the color property system, no output schema guidance, and no parameter documentation despite having two configuration options with defaults.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), and the description completely fails to explain these parameters. The mismatch between the tool name (suggesting color theming) and parameter names (suggesting network/connection timeouts) creates confusion that the description does not resolve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States basic action ('Set theme color override') but lacks specificity about which color property or theme resource is targeted. Does not differentiate from siblings like set_theme_constant, set_theme_font_size, or set_theme_stylebox, leaving ambiguity about what constitutes a 'color' vs other theme properties in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at a specific use case but fails to explain what compatibility scenario warrants this tool over standard theme modification approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers almost none. It does not state whether the override affects the current session only or persists to disk, whether it requires an open scene, or what happens if the constant doesn't exist. The 'compatibility' label hints at special behavior but is not elaborated upon.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (four words plus a parenthetical), avoiding verbosity, but this brevity results in underspecification. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag is front-loaded but unexplained, wasting potential information density. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the parenthetical raises questions without answering them.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It fails to explain the additionalProperties pattern essential for passing the constant name and value, leaving a critical gap in the absence of schema documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely. The schema defines timeoutMs and autoConnect (likely connection parameters) and allows additionalProperties: true, suggesting the actual theme constant name/value pairs are passed dynamically. The description gives no hint about this critical usage pattern, nor does it explain the two defined parameters' purposes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action ('Set theme constant override') using a specific verb and resource type, which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like set_theme_color or set_theme_font_size. However, it fails to explain what constitutes a 'theme constant' in this context (Godot integer constants vs. other theme properties) or what 'override' means (temporary vs. persistent). The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained, reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 the more specific sibling tools (set_theme_color, set_theme_font_size, set_theme_stylebox). The description does not explain the 'compatibility' designation—whether this is deprecated, legacy, or serves a specific niche use case—leaving agents without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses almost nothing about side effects (what gets clicked?), state changes, or the meaning of 'Compatibility tool'. It fails to explain what the timeoutMs or autoConnect behaviors affect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (4 words), but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment consumes space without earning its place—it provides no actionable information. The first sentence is front-loaded but redundant with the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It omits critical context such as coordinate requirements (implied by additionalProperties), connection behavior, and the meaning of 'compatibility'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates with zero information about timeoutMs (operation timeout? connection timeout?) or autoConnect (connect to what?). The additionalProperties: true flag suggests coordinates or targets might be accepted, but the description is silent on this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (simulate mouse click) but borders on tautology since it merely restates the tool name. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained jargon that doesn't clarify scope or distinguish from siblings like 'simulate_mouse_move' or 'simulate_key'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus sibling simulation tools (simulate_mouse_move, simulate_key, simulate_sequence) or prerequisites (e.g., whether a game must be running, if coordinates are required via additionalProperties).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to specify what data format is returned, what constitutes a 'cell' in this context, error behaviors, or why this is marked as a compatibility tool. Minimal behavioral context provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (4 words plus parenthetical) and front-loaded, but inappropriately sized for the complexity. With zero schema documentation and no annotations, the description needs substantially more detail to be functional; brevity here represents under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a getter tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation. Missing: cell identification method (coordinates), return value structure, tilemap targeting mechanism, and explanation of the 'compatibility' designation. Does not meet the minimum viable threshold for agent invocation confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (timeoutMs and autoConnect undocumented). The description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or the implied cell coordinates (x, y) likely needed given the function name. With additionalProperties: true in schema, critical parameter semantics are completely missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States basic operation ('Get tile cell data') with specific verb and resource, but fails to differentiate from siblings like 'tilemap_get_used_cells' or 'tilemap_get_info'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained, leaving ambiguity about whether this is deprecated or legacy functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the four other tilemap-related tools (tilemap_get_info, tilemap_get_used_cells, etc.). Does not explain what 'compatibility tool' implies for usage patterns or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal context. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at behavioral constraints (possibly deprecation or legacy support) but remains unexplained. No information about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., bus must exist), or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (6 words), this is underspecification rather than efficient conciseness. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without earning its place—providing a cryptic classification without explanation. The description lacks the necessary detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the specialized domain (audio effects in Godot), 0% schema coverage, and 'additionalProperties' allowing arbitrary parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to document required parameters, expected effect types, or return behavior, leaving the agent without sufficient context to construct valid invocations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Critical failure: schema has 0% description coverage and allows 'additionalProperties: true', indicating significant parameters (likely 'bus_name', 'effect_type') are not defined in the schema. The description completely omits all parameters including the two defined ones ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'), failing to explain what operation times out or what gets auto-connected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Add effect to audio bus') but remains vague about what constitutes an 'effect' in this context (e.g., reverb, delay, EQ). It fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_audio_bus', which creates the bus itself versus adding effects to an existing bus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'set_audio_bus' or 'get_audio_bus_layout'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' suggests special usage constraints but offers no explanation of what they are or when this should be preferred over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at behavioral constraints but remains unexplained. The description does not disclose side effects, persistence of connections, or the meaning of the timeout/autoConnect behavior evident in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (6 words) with no filler or redundancy. However, the second sentence '(Compatibility tool)' does not earn its place as it provides no actionable information without elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Godot signal systems (requiring source node, signal name, target node, and method) and the presence of timeout/autoConnect parameters suggesting non-standard behavior, the description is inadequate. No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate by explaining these parameters, their valid ranges, or their semantic purpose in signal connection context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action ('Connect') and domain object ('node signal'), which in the context of Godot (evident from siblings) has specific meaning. However, it fails to specify connection targets, signal types, or distinguish from sibling tools like 'disconnect_signal' or 'find_signal_connections'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'disconnect_signal', 'get_signals', or 'find_signal_connections'. No prerequisites, warnings, or selection criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only hints at special status via '(Compatibility tool)' without elaborating on risks, side effects, or what compatibility entails. It omits details about search mechanics, result format, and the connection behavior implied by the `autoConnect` parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief at seven words, the description is incomplete rather than efficiently concise. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without delivering actionable information, violating the principle that every sentence must earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description leaves critical gaps. The unexplained compatibility status, undocumented timeout/connection parameters, and lack of return value information render it inadequate for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description fails to compensate by explaining the `timeoutMs` or `autoConnect` parameters. No context is provided regarding what connection is being auto-established or the consequences of timeout expiration, leaving critical parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action (search node references) and scope (in files), distinguishing it from scene-tree searches like `find_nodes_by_type`. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' introduces ambiguity without explanation, leaving users uncertain whether this indicates deprecation, legacy support, or a specific compatibility mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to select this tool versus siblings such as `find_script_references`, `find_signal_connections`, or `search_in_files`. The description fails to clarify the implications of the 'Compatibility tool' label or suggest prerequisites for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but fails to explain what 'Compatibility tool' implies (legacy status? limited functionality?), what the simulation entails (instant teleport vs. smooth traversal), or why the parameters are connection-oriented (timeoutMs, autoConnect) rather than positional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief at only four words plus a parenthetical, the description suffers from under-specification rather than efficient precision. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag consumes space without conveying actionable meaning, and critical information (parameter purposes, coordinate handling) is entirely absent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mouse simulation tool with 'additionalProperties: true' in the schema, the description omits crucial details: how to specify target coordinates (or if they're required), what happens after the timeout expires, and the expected side effects. Without an output schema or annotations, the description needed to compensate but did not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description provides no semantic information about 'timeoutMs' (timeout for what operation?) or 'autoConnect' (connect to what?). It also fails to explain the mismatch between the tool's purpose (mouse movement) and the absence of coordinate parameters, leaving the agent uncertain how to specify the movement destination.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Simulate mouse movement') but is essentially a restatement of the tool name. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained, failing to clarify scope or distinguish this from the sibling 'simulate_mouse_click' tool beyond the obvious 'movement' vs 'click' distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'simulate_mouse_click', 'simulate_action', or 'simulate_sequence'. Given the unusual parameter schema (lacking coordinate inputs), the absence of prerequisites or usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description fails to explain what 'compatibility tool' means (deprecated API? legacy mode?), what side effects occur, or why the parameters include timeout and connection settings unusual for node creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (4 words plus parenthetical), but the '(Compatibility tool)' clause consumes space without delivering usable information. Front-loading is correct, but the overall brevity is inappropriate given the lack of schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema. In a complex domain with 100+ sibling tools, the description provides no context about what a GridMap is (3D tile system), how it differs from TileMap, or what the return value represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions for timeoutMs or autoConnect). The description completely fails to compensate, providing no information about these parameters, their units (milliseconds implied by name but not confirmed), or their relationship to GridMap node creation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action (Create) and resource type (GridMap node), distinguishing it from generic siblings like add_node. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is unexplained, leaving ambiguity about whether this creates a legacy/deprecated node type or requires special handling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus add_node or other node creation tools. The 'compatibility' label suggests specific usage constraints, but none are explained. No alternatives or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but only offers the unexplained 'compatibility' label. It does not state whether the tool creates, modifies, or references existing nodes, nor does it explain side effects or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief and front-loaded, its extreme brevity is inappropriate given the lack of schema documentation and annotations. The '(Compatibility tool)' aside consumes space without conveying actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and the presence of cryptic parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), the description is insufficient. It does not compensate for the missing structured metadata needed to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for timeoutMs and autoConnect, yet the description provides no semantic context for these parameters. It also fails to document what RayCast-specific properties (beyond the two generic ones shown) are accepted via additionalProperties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the specific node types (RayCast2D/3D) but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained, muddying the purpose. It also fails to clarify when to use this specialized tool versus the generic add_node sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over add_node or other alternatives. The 'compatibility' label suggests a specific use case but offers no criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. The 'Compatibility tool' hint suggests specific behavioral constraints but fails to explain them. It does not disclose what happens if the timeout expires, what gets 'auto-connected,' or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence plus parenthetical), which prevents bloat, but given the complete lack of schema documentation and behavioral annotations, this brevity results in underspecification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide necessary compensatory detail. Critical gaps remain regarding parameter semantics, error handling, and the specific meaning of 'Compatibility tool.'
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect,' yet the description provides no semantic context for these parameters. The agent cannot infer what timeout is being measured (operation duration? connection timeout?) or what automatic connection refers to (signal connections? node parenting?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the core action (instancing a scene as a child node) and distinguishes it from sibling 'add_node' by specifying 'scene.' However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained, creating ambiguity about whether this is a legacy, deprecated, or special-purpose tool without clarifying the implications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'add_node,' 'create_scene,' or 'open_scene.' The description does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., whether the scene must be loaded first) or when instantiation should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain execution time characteristics (despite timeoutMs parameter suggesting potential hangs), side effects, or what the 'compatibility' designation implies for behavior. The cryptic parenthetical adds no actionable behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Brief and front-loaded with the primary verb, but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical wastes space without explanation. Every sentence should earn its place; this adds an unexplained categorization that confuses rather than clarifies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is grossly insufficient. For a complex analytical operation in a Godot environment, it lacks essential context: return value structure, specific metrics analyzed, and error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) but completely fails to do so. No explanation of what connection autoConnect establishes or why a timeout might be necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action ('Analyze') and target ('scene complexity metrics'), but 'complexity metrics' remains vague regarding what specific metrics are computed. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and doesn't clarify scope or differentiate from sibling analysis tools like analyze_signal_flow or run_stress_test.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like run_stress_test or get_scene_dependencies, nor does it explain the significance of it being a 'compatibility tool' (deprecated? legacy?). Lacks prerequisites or constraints for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at behavior with '(Compatibility tool)' but does not explain side effects, what happens to existing particle configurations when a preset is applied, or the implications of the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (5 words plus a parenthetical), which technically avoids verbosity, but given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, this brevity constitutes under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The 'compatibility' note is underexplained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions. The description does not explain return values, error conditions, or how this operation interacts with the Godot particle system. For a tool manipulating complex scene elements with two undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control, what the timeout applies to, or what auto-connection establishes. This leaves critical operational parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Apply particle effect preset') but fails to define what constitutes a 'preset' in this context. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is ambiguous—it is unclear whether this indicates the tool is legacy/deprecated or applies compatibility-specific presets, creating confusion rather than clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling alternatives like 'create_particles', 'set_particle_material', or 'set_particle_color_gradient'. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a particle node must exist beforehand, or when the compatibility mode is necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain side effects (e.g., whether this overwrites existing scripts), prerequisites (node selection state vs explicit parameters), or what 'Compatibility tool' implies (legacy support, deprecation, etc.).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (6 words), but brevity crosses into under-specification. While not verbose, the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment consumes space without adding actionable information, and critical details about the attachment mechanism are omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-mutating tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not address how the target node or script are specified (likely via additionalProperties), error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect. The description adds zero information about what these parameters control (e.g., connection timeouts to the Godot editor, auto-connecting signals) or what additional properties are accepted via additionalProperties: true.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action ('Attach script to node') but provides minimal context. Does not clarify what 'attach' entails in the Godot context (e.g., assigning a Script resource to a Node), nor how to specify which node or script. The phrase '(Compatibility tool)' is opaque and unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_script, edit_script, or assign_shader_material. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at limited applicability but fails to explain when it should or should not be preferred over standard workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to mention that this is likely a long-running operation (evidenced by the timeoutMs parameter), whether it modifies scene files, or what 'compatibility' refers to. Does not explain side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at four words, but underspecified given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations. The '(Compatibility tool)' fragment adds confusion without sufficient context to earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Navigation mesh baking is a complex, potentially expensive operation with two undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description provides insufficient context for an agent to understand failure modes, return values, or parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description compensates with zero information. The critical timeoutMs parameter (suggesting potential hangs) and autoConnect parameter are completely undocumented in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic operation ('Bake navigation mesh') but offers no differentiation from sibling navigation tools like setup_navigation_region or get_navigation_info. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify scope or purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to bake vs. setup a region). The 'compatibility tool' note implies legacy usage but fails to specify prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 fails to explain side effects (where frames are stored, memory impact, format), blocking behavior, or what 'Compatibility tool' signifies. The only behavioral hint is 'multiple,' suggesting a sequence rather than a single image.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at seven words. While efficiently worded without filler, it is underspecified rather than elegantly concise. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is uninformative and consumes space without adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description should easily achieve completeness, yet it fails to explain the capture mechanism, return value, or frame destination. The 'compatibility' aspect remains a mystery, leaving critical gaps for an agent attempting to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero compensation. It does not mention 'timeoutMs' (controlling capture duration) or 'autoConnect' (handling game connection), leaving both parameters completely undocumented beyond their property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (Capture) and target (multiple game frames), which distinguishes it slightly from single-frame screenshot tools. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained, and the description fails to clarify how this differs from the sibling 'start_recording' tool or what happens to the captured frames.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_game_screenshot' or 'start_recording'. Does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an active game connection (implied by 'autoConnect' parameter but not explained) or when the capture operation terminates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '(Compatibility tool)' suggesting legacy or specific behavioral mode, but provides no details on side effects, persistence, file system interactions, or what the timeoutMs parameter implies about network/file I/O behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two fragments), which prevents information overload, but the '(Compatibility tool)' aside consumes space without delivering value. The description is front-loaded but suffers from under-specification rather than efficient precision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two undocumented parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or the relationship between the connection-oriented parameters and the file creation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect). The description fails entirely to explain what timeoutMs measures (connection timeout? file write timeout?), what autoConnect connects to, or why a 'resource file creation' operation involves connection semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States basic action (create) and target (resource file), which minimally distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_resource' (implies file creation vs. adding to scene). However, the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds confusion without explanation, and it doesn't clarify the specific resource types or scope compared to 'edit_resource' or 'read_resource'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'add_resource', 'edit_resource', or 'read_resource'. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at a specific use case but fails to explain what compatibility scenario warrants its use over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Fails to mention critical behavioral aspects: file overwrite behavior, what 'autoConnect' implies for the creation flow, required additional properties (given additionalProperties: true), or return values. 'Compatibility tool' is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two sentences), but the second sentence '(Compatibility tool)' wastes space without explanatory value. Given the severe underspecification elsewhere, this brevity is inadequate rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Severely incomplete for a file-mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation. Fails to address the additionalProperties: true schema feature which is likely central to the tool's operation (presumably for script content/path).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description completely fails to compensate. Does not explain timeoutMs (is this for creation timeout or compilation?), autoConnect (connect to what?), or the critical additionalProperties pattern which likely accepts file path and content parameters essential for script creation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States basic verb and resource ('Create a script file') but lacks specificity about script type, file location, or content. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at legacy status but doesn't clarify scope or distinguish sufficiently from sibling tools like attach_script or create_resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., attach_script for attaching to nodes, edit_script for modifying existing files). The 'Compatibility tool' label suggests deprecation or legacy use but fails to specify the preferred alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Create' implies mutation but lacks specifics on persistence, side effects, or what 'compatibility' mode entails. Does not explain why creation requires timeout/auto-connect parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse (two fragments) but given the complete lack of parameter documentation and behavioral context, this brevity represents under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a resource creation tool with mysterious parameters and no output schema. Missing: how to reference the created theme, what the compatibility warning means, and why network-like parameters exist on a theme creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), yet description adds no explanation for these seemingly connection-related parameters in a theme creation context. Complete failure to compensate for undocumented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States it creates a 'theme resource' which is specific in the Godot context (evidenced by sibling tools like set_theme_color), but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is unexplained and creates ambiguity about whether this is deprecated or for specific use cases. Does not clarify distinction from generic create_resource sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_resource or add_resource siblings. The 'compatibility' label suggests specific usage constraints but fails to explain what they are.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to specify return format (list of cycles? boolean?), timeout behavior, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies regarding side effects or deprecation status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (5 words), but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment wastes space without adding functional clarity. Front-loaded structure is good, though underspecification makes brevity a liability rather than efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with configurable timeout and connection behavior. Missing: dependency type specification, output format description (no output schema exists), and explanation of what constitutes a 'cycle' in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description compensates with zero information about timeoutMs (timing constraints for the operation) or autoConnect (connection behavior implications). Critical gap for a 2-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (detect dependency cycles) but lacks specificity about what dependency domain it operates on (scenes, resources, or scripts). The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and doesn't clarify scope or distinguish from siblings like get_scene_dependencies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_scene_dependencies or find_script_references. No mention of prerequisites or scenarios where detection is necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to explain what constitutes a 'group' in this context, what the return format is, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies about stability or deprecation. Does not describe the impact of 'autoConnect' or timeout behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (6 words), but underspecified rather than efficiently concise. The '(Compatibility tool)' fragment hints at important context but wastes space by not explaining it. Structure is front-loaded but content-deficient for a tool requiring specific group identification input.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Incomplete for a search tool in a complex node system. No output schema exists, yet the description doesn't explain return values (list of node paths? IDs?). With 'additionalProperties: true' and 0% schema coverage, the description should have documented the primary input parameter, which it omits entirely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Critical failure: schema has 0% description coverage and 'additionalProperties: true', implying the essential group identifier parameter is undocumented. The description does not compensate by listing required parameters (e.g., group name) or explaining 'timeoutMs'/'autoConnect' semantics. User cannot invoke this tool successfully from documentation alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (find nodes) and target (group), but 'group' is Godot-specific jargon without explanation. Fails to differentiate from sibling 'get_node_groups' (which retrieves groups, not nodes). The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is opaque and hints at legacy behavior without clarifying.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'get_node_groups', 'find_nodes_by_type', or 'find_node_references'. Does not explain the implications of 'Compatibility tool' (e.g., whether a newer alternative exists). No prerequisites or scoping guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but offers only the cryptic 'Compatibility tool' hint without explaining what that implies for behavior, state changes, or return values. It does not clarify what the 'autoConnect' parameter connects to, or what happens during the timeout period.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While appropriately brief at two fragments, the second fragment '(Compatibility tool)' wastes space by providing a label without context or explanation. The description is front-loaded with the action, but the parenthetical creates confusion rather than value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this tool has parameters with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to describe the return structure (critical for a 'get' tool), the connection behavior implied by 'autoConnect', or the legacy/compatibility nature of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'), yet the description provides no compensatory information about what these parameters control, their units, or their behavioral implications. The agent must guess the purpose of a timeout and auto-connection logic in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('audio bus layout'), but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' introduces ambiguity without explanation—it's unclear if this indicates deprecation, legacy support, or backward compatibility requirements. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_audio_info'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'get_audio_info' or 'add_audio_bus'. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or exclusion criteria that would help an agent determine if this is the correct tool for their current task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description discloses nothing about return value structure, what 'compatibility' implies for behavior, or why timeoutMs/autoConnect parameters exist for an information getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at 6 words, but this efficiency crosses into under-specification. The single sentence conveys the basic operation type, yet wastes the parenthetical on an unexplained 'Compatibility' label instead of useful behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Severely incomplete given zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema. The description does not compensate for missing metadata by explaining return values, error conditions, or the specific audio node types supported (e.g., AudioStreamPlayer vs AudioStreamPlayer2D).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters. The description completely fails to explain what these parameters control, why a 'get info' tool needs connection timeouts, or what autoConnect=true connects to. Critical gap given zero schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States it retrieves 'audio node information' which distinguishes it from sibling get_audio_bus_layout, but 'audio node' is ambiguous in the Godot context (AudioStreamPlayer? Audio bus?). The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds confusion without clarifying scope or deprecation status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus get_audio_bus_layout or other audio inspection tools. The '(Compatibility tool)' notation hints at special usage constraints but fails to explain what they are or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but discloses nothing about return format, side effects, or the meaning of 'compatibility'. It does not explain what the operation connects to (given 'autoConnect') or what timeout scenario is being handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (4 words) and front-loaded, but this conciseness crosses into under-specification. The parenthetical is efficiently placed, yet the overall length is inappropriate for a tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Critical gaps exist: no explanation of which node is being queried (despite the schema lacking a node identifier), no return value description (no output schema exists), and no clarification of the 'compatibility' context. For a property retrieval tool, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters. Given the schema only defines 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' (with additionalProperties: true), the description fails to explain what node identifier is expected, what the timeout applies to, or what connection autoConnect establishes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action ('Get node properties') and identifies it as a 'Compatibility tool', but fails to specify which node types it targets or how it differs from siblings like 'get_game_node_properties' or 'batch_get_properties'. The scope remains ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical implies legacy usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'get_game_node_properties' or what 'compatibility' refers to. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses that it is a read operation. It fails to explain the return format, what 'Compatibility tool' means behaviorally, timeout behavior, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (one sentence plus a parenthetical), but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment is under-specified rather than meaningfully concise—it raises questions without answering them.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should elaborate on parameters and return values. It provides insufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's full contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description adds zero information about the 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect' parameters. No compensation for the undocumented schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic verb (Read) and resource (project settings) but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this from sibling 'get_project_info' or 'get_project_statistics'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at scope but is too cryptic to clarify purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_info' or 'set_project_setting', nor does it explain what 'Compatibility tool' implies for usage (deprecated? legacy? fallback?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it reveals nothing about the return format (base64 image? file path?), error handling, side effects (does it generate thumbnails or only retrieve cached ones?), or what 'compatibility' refers to (Godot 3.x vs 4.x?).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at six words plus a parenthetical. While not verbose, the brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication—the '(Compatibility tool)' aside consumes space without conveying useful behavioral context, and critical parameter information is omitted entirely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description should explain the return format (likely image data). With undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: it doesn't specify the resource identification mechanism, return type, or the 'compatibility' context, making it insufficient for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the two defined parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect') and 'additionalProperties: true' suggesting a resource identifier is required, the description completely fails to document what parameters are expected, their semantics, or what resource identifier format is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action ('Get resource preview thumbnail') with a clear verb and object, but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'read_resource' or clarify what constitutes a 'resource' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'read_resource' or 'get_editor_screenshot'. The '(Compatibility tool)' note implies legacy usage but fails to specify what modern alternative should be used instead, leaving the agent without actionable selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It does not clarify what 'compatibility tool' implies for behavior (deprecated? limited scope?), what the return format is (no output schema), or why an 'inspect' operation has parameters named 'autoConnect' and 'timeoutMs' that suggest active connection behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (5 words plus parenthetical), but brevity becomes a liability given the complete lack of schema documentation. The '(Compatibility tool)' aside consumes space without earning it—without explanation, it adds confusion rather than value. Structure is front-loaded but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema. The description omits critical context: the meaning of 'compatibility tool', the nature of the returned signal data, the purpose of the autoConnect parameter (which is oddly named for an inspection tool), and how this relates to Godot's signal system evident in the sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description completely fails to compensate. It does not explain what 'timeoutMs' refers to (connection timeout? inspection timeout?), what 'autoConnect' connects to (the node? a debugger?), or the significance of 'additionalProperties: true' allowing arbitrary extra properties. Parameters remain undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the domain (node signals and connections) and implies a read-only operation ('Inspect'), but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained. It fails to differentiate from siblings like 'find_signal_connections' or 'analyze_signal_flow', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling signal-related tools (find_signal_connections, analyze_signal_flow, connect_signal). The 'compatibility tool' label suggests specific constraints or deprecation, but offers no explanation of what those are or when this should be preferred/avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals almost nothing. It does not disclose the report format, content structure, side effects, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies (deprecated? legacy? internal?). The cryptic parenthetical is the only behavioral hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two short phrases), which technically avoids verbosity, but is inappropriately underspecified for a tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag appears tacked on without explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to be comprehensive but is instead minimal. It does not explain what the test report contains, how to interpret it, or its relationship to the test execution workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining what timeout applies to (test execution? connection?) or what 'autoConnect' connects to. Parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive but lack critical context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (getting a test report) but is tautological with the tool name. It fails to specify what kind of test report (unit, integration, scene) or distinguish from siblings like 'run_test_scenario' and 'run_stress_test'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is vague and unhelpful.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'run_test_scenario' or 'assert_node_state'. No prerequisites, conditions, or workflow context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses almost nothing. The 'Compatibility tool' hint suggests legacy behavior but doesn't explain what compatibility means, what gets returned, or timeout/autoConnect implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (four words), but the '(Compatibility tool)' aside consumes space without adding actionable value. Front-loading is present but content is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate given the tool has parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description omits return value structure, error conditions, and Godot-specific theme override semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for timeoutMs and autoConnect. The description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control or their default behaviors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action ('Get theme override info') but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained. Does not clarify how this differs from create_theme or the various set_theme_* siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus create_theme or other theme-related tools. No mention of prerequisites, side effects, or workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden but offers only the vague '(Compatibility tool)' hint without explaining what compatibility mode entails, return format, pagination, or side effects. The timeoutMs parameter suggests potential blocking behavior that should have been disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While appropriately brief at two short phrases, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Given zero schema coverage and no output schema, additional length was needed to document parameters and return behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Severely incomplete for a listing tool with no output schema. Fails to describe return structure (array of file paths? script objects?), filtering capabilities, or how it handles large projects. The undocumented parameters suggest connection management that remains unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect). The description completely fails to compensate by explaining these technical parameters—particularly what the timeout applies to or what auto-connecting means in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('scripts in project'), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'get_open_scripts' (which likely returns only currently open scripts). The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and doesn't clarify scope or purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'get_open_scripts' or 'read_script'. No mention of prerequisites, project connection requirements, or performance considerations despite the timeoutMs parameter implying potential hanging behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose movement behavior (instant teleport vs. interpolated motion vs. pathfinding), what happens on timeout, or what 'autoConnect' refers to. Only the cryptic 'Compatibility tool' suggests behavioral constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief and front-loaded with the action, the description is underspecified rather than appropriately concise. The '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier wastes space without explanation, and critical context is omitted to achieve brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with 'additionalProperties: true' suggesting complex, dynamic inputs. No explanation of the extension mechanism, output behavior, or integration with the game engine (evident from siblings). Fails to leverage the lack of output schema by describing return values or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides zero compensation for the two parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect). It does not explain what the timeout measures (movement duration? connection timeout?), what autoConnect connects to, or what valid 'additionalProperties' are accepted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action ('Move actor to target') but lacks specificity about what constitutes an 'actor' in this context (likely Godot given siblings) and fails to differentiate from similar tools like 'move_node' or 'navigate_to'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is unexpanded.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_node' or 'navigate_to'. The '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests deprecation or legacy usage but does not specify what to use instead or when this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet the description discloses nothing about return format, error handling when file doesn't exist, or side effects. The unusual parameter names (timeoutMs, autoConnect) suggest this interacts with a running game/editor instance, but this behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two fragments), but the '(Compatibility tool)' text wastes limited space without explaining its significance. Front-loading is adequate, but brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail for the parameter complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of cryptic parameters suggesting network/connection behavior and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the Godot-specific context (e.g., reading from Editor vs Filesystem vs Running Game) implied by the parameter names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but mentions neither 'timeoutMs' nor 'autoConnect'. These parameters are semantically cryptic for a file-reading operation and desperately require explanation (e.g., connection timeout vs read timeout).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States basic action ('Read') and resource ('shader file') but fails to distinguish from siblings like 'read_resource' (which could read shaders as resources) or 'edit_shader'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is vague and unhelpful for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'read_resource', 'edit_shader', or 'get_shader_params'. Does not explain what 'Compatibility tool' implies about its use case or when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'reconnect bridge' but doesn't explain what state is preserved/destroyed during reload, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens if the plugin fails to reload, or the impact on the running game/editor. 'Compatibility tool' hints at legacy/edge-case usage without explaining the implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact (one sentence plus a tag) and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the brevity crosses into underspecification given the complete lack of schema documentation. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag earns its place but could be more descriptive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to be substantially more informative. It omits critical details about parameter semantics, return values, side effects, and sibling differentiation, leaving the agent with minimal actionable context beyond the tool name itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'). The description fails entirely to compensate, providing no information about what the timeout applies to (connection attempt? plugin load?), the units (milliseconds implied by 'Ms' suffix but not confirmed), or the behavior of the autoConnect flag.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action ('Reload plugin') and mentions reconnecting a 'bridge', but 'bridge' is ambiguous (MCP bridge? Godot editor bridge?). It fails to distinguish clearly from sibling tools like 'reload_project' or connection management tools ('godot_connect'). The '(Compatibility tool)' tag adds some context but doesn't fully clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' implies a specific use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'reload_project' or other connection-related tools. No prerequisites, error conditions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Compatibility tool' but provides no details about what happens to connected transitions when a state is removed, whether the operation is reversible, or what the return value indicates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (four words plus a parenthetical), avoiding bloat, but this brevity becomes a liability given the lack of schema documentation and annotations. The first sentence restates the tool name (tautology), earning minimal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature of removal operations, the presence of undocumented generic parameters, and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, side effects on state machine topology, or success/failure indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), which appear to be connection-level settings rather than domain-specific arguments. The description fails to explain what these parameters control or why they are relevant to state removal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action (remove) and resource (state machine state) clearly enough to distinguish it from siblings like add_state_machine_state and remove_state_machine_transition. However, the appended '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier is vague and creates ambiguity about whether this is the preferred method or a legacy fallback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' implies limited or specific use cases but fails to provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, or what compatibility scenarios require it. No prerequisites or side effects are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what happens to connected states when a transition is removed, or whether the change is immediate/reversible. The agent must infer mutation risk solely from the verb 'Remove'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence fragment), but the '(Compatibility tool)' annotation wastes space without explanation. While not verbose, the extreme brevity crosses into under-specification, failing to front-load critical context about the operation's scope or parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool on state machine resources with no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters, the description is critically incomplete. It lacks necessary context about side effects, return behavior, or the meaning of its generic-looking parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters, the description completely fails to compensate. It does not explain what these parameters control (e.g., connection timeout vs. state machine timeout), why they exist for a transition removal operation, or how they affect the tool's execution.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Remove state machine transition'), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with minimal elaboration. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds no actionable clarity and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_state_machine_state' or 'add_state_machine_transition'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., when to remove vs. modify a transition), nor are prerequisites mentioned. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at special usage constraints but fails to explain them, leaving the agent without actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the test modifies game state, generates output files, requires a running scene, or has performance implications. The term 'stress test' implies intensity but lacks specifics on resource usage or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with two short fragments, avoiding verbosity. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds minimal value without elaboration, and the extreme brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits parameter semantics, behavioral constraints, and return value information necessary for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no compensation. It does not explain what 'timeoutMs' controls (test duration? connection timeout?) or what 'autoConnect' connects to (the game? a test harness?). The parameters remain semantically undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool runs a 'stress input test' and labels it as a 'Compatibility tool', providing basic verb and resource identification. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling test tools like 'run_test_scenario' or explain what 'compatibility' means in this context (backward compatibility vs. compatibility testing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'run_test_scenario', 'simulate_sequence', or 'assert_node_state'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at a specific use case but lacks explicit 'when to use/when not to use' instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet the description discloses nothing about search scope (which files?), matching behavior (regex vs literal?), output format, or what the connection-oriented parameters control. 'Compatibility tool' hints at behavior but remains unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two fragments), but the '(Compatibility tool)' tag wastes limited space without adding actionable information. Front-loaded with the verb, yet under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate given zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. A search tool requires disclosure of search syntax, scope, and return values—none of which are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect', but the description fails to compensate by explaining what these control (connection to what? timeout for what operation?). The parameters appear unrelated to the stated file-searching purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action ('Search text across files') but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic without elaboration. Critically fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'search_files', leaving ambiguity about which search tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' label implies a legacy or fallback use case, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites. No mention of when to prefer this over 'search_files' or what 'compatibility' refers to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Compatibility tool' suggesting legacy or special-mode behavior, but fails to explain the destructive/side-effect profile, what 'compatibility' specifically means, or why the parameters suggest connection-timeout behavior rather than physics configuration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the primary action, but it is underspecified rather than elegantly concise. The '(Compatibility tool)' fragment adds some value but is too vague to fully earn its place without elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex parameter schema (connection-like params with additionalProperties for actual values), lack of annotations, and ambiguous 'compatibility' context, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the additionalProperties pattern, the relationship to get_physics_layers, or the prerequisites for use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and includes parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) that appear unrelated to the described physics layer functionality. The description completely omits explanation of these parameters or the critical fact that additionalProperties: true allows passing the actual layer/mask values not defined in the schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action (Set) and resource (collision layer and mask), but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is vague and unexplained. It fails to clarify how this differs from sibling tools like setup_physics_body or set_navigation_layers, and the stated purpose conflicts confusingly with the timeoutMs/autoConnect parameters in the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests special usage context, but it doesn't explain when to prefer this over alternatives like setup_physics_body, nor does it clarify that actual layer/mask values must be passed via additionalProperties since they aren't defined in the input schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It does not clarify persistence scope, validation rules, error conditions, or the significance of the 'Compatibility' label.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' tag consumes space without adding usable information. The description is front-loaded but underspecified for the schema complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and a complex additionalProperties pattern, the description is inadequate. It does not explain output behavior, error states, or how to structure the input for multiple settings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and uses 'additionalProperties: true' pattern (implying arbitrary setting keys can be passed), but the description mentions only a singular 'value'. It fails to explain that timeoutMs/autoConnect are execution parameters while actual settings use additionalProperties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Set') and resource ('project setting'), but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained and confusing. It does not differentiate from sibling 'set_' tools (e.g., set_shader_param, set_theme_color) or clarify the relationship to 'get_project_settings'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for use, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies (e.g., deprecation, legacy support).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to mention that additionalProperties: true allows arbitrary configuration keys, what the timeoutMs applies to (connection? command execution?), or what autoConnect connects to. The compatibility warning is the only behavioral hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at two fragments, but brevity here masks under-specification rather than efficient communication. The sentences are front-loaded but fail to earn their place due to vagueness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a configuration tool with dynamic parameters (additionalProperties: true) and no output schema. Lacks explanation of what 'world environment' encompasses, what the compatibility layer preserves, and how the timeout/autoConnect parameters affect operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect, and the description completely omits what these parameters control. It also fails to document the significance of additionalProperties: true, which permits arbitrary extra configuration fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Provides a verb ('Configure') and resource ('world environment'), but remains ambiguous in the Godot context—unclear if this configures the WorldEnvironment node, general project settings, or something else. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds some distinction but is cryptic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' notation implies legacy usage but fails to explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like setup_lighting or set_project_setting, or what 'compatibility' refers to (API version? Godot 3 vs 4?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only mentions 'delays' as a behavioral trait. It omits safety information (whether this modifies state), timeout failure behavior, autoConnect functionality, and return values. The mention of delays is insufficient for an automation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at six words plus a parenthetical. While it avoids fluff, it is under-informative for a tool with zero schema documentation and complex behavioral implications. The front-loading is adequate but the density is too low.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description should comprehensively explain the tool's function, parameters, and effects. It provides only a vague high-level summary, leaving critical gaps in documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to document timeoutMs and autoConnect. It fails to do so; 'delays' vaguely alludes to timeout behavior but provides no syntax, units, or defaults. autoConnect is entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'runs input sequence with delays,' which provides a verb and resource, but 'input sequence' remains undefined and fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like simulate_action, simulate_key, or replay_recording. The compatibility parenthetical hints at legacy status but doesn't clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' tag implies legacy status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the more specific simulate_* tools or replay_recording. No prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It does not explain where recordings are stored (memory, filesystem, or output), whether the operation blocks, what happens upon timeout, or the implications of the 'compatibility' designation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief at only four words plus a parenthetical, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. The cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' annotation consumes space without adding actionable meaning or context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the stateful nature of recording operations, the lack of output schema, zero parameter documentation, and no explanation of the recording lifecycle (start/stop/replay), the description is inadequate. It omits essential context about recording duration limits, storage mechanisms, and session management.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for both timeoutMs and autoConnect, and the description fails to compensate by explaining these parameters. No information is provided about the timeout duration behavior, units, or what 'autoConnect' connects to, leaving critical operational parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Start input recording') with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling stop_recording. However, 'input recording' lacks specificity regarding input type (keyboard, mouse, gamepad) and the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulate_sequence, or that it must be paired with stop_recording to complete a capture session. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites or sequencing requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose what happens to the recording data upon stopping (is it saved, returned, or discarded?), the purpose of the timeout parameter, or what auto-connecting refers to.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (4 words plus parenthetical), which is structurally efficient, but fails to earn its place by omitting critical parameter and behavioral context required due to lack of schema documentation and annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. Missing parameter semantics, return value description (what does the tool return?), and behavioral details necessary for correct invocation in the recording workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description completely omits explanation of `timeoutMs` (timeout for what operation?) and `autoConnect` (connect to what?), leaving both parameters semantically undocumented despite the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (stopping input recording) and identifies it as a 'compatibility tool', but lacks specificity regarding the recording lifecycle and does not differentiate from sibling tools like `start_recording` or `replay_recording`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool (e.g., only after `start_recording`), workflow prerequisites, or when to prefer alternatives. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at limited use cases but lacks explicit instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions 'Compatibility tool' as a behavioral trait but fails to explain what this means in practice (e.g., different internal initialization, deprecated API usage). No mention of side effects, node placement context, or lifecycle implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at two sentences. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence attempts to add context (albeit unclearly). Given the severe information gaps elsewhere, it is appropriately terse in structure but undersized for the content required.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the 'Compatibility' aspect and parameter meanings. It leaves critical gaps: why use this instead of add_node with type AudioStreamPlayer, what the timeout applies to, and what auto-connect targets.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect', yet the description provides no parameter context whatsoever. It fails to explain what operation times out, what connection is automatically established, or what values are appropriate beyond the schema's minimum constraint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (Add) and resource (AudioStreamPlayer node), but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained and confusing. It doesn't clarify whether this is for backward compatibility, Godot's compatibility rendering mode, or compatibility with specific audio formats, weakening clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the generic 'add_node' sibling or when to prefer 'add_audio_bus' for audio routing. The 'Compatibility tool' label might imply legacy usage but is too vague to constitute actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only adds the 'Compatibility tool' context. It omits whether this creates, references, or modifies resources, what happens to existing attachments, side effects, or operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (6 words plus parenthetical) and front-loaded with the action, but its brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with flexible schema (`additionalProperties`) and no output schema. The description misses critical context about expected inputs, return behavior, and the Godot-specific meaning of 'attach' in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both `timeoutMs` and `autoConnect`, and the description fails to compensate by explaining these parameters or the critical `additionalProperties: true` pattern (what extra properties are expected?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action ('Attach resource to node') with a specific verb and resource type, but fails to differentiate from siblings like `create_resource`, `read_resource`, or `edit_resource`, leaving ambiguity about when attachment is preferred over creation or modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' weakly implies legacy usage but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the node or resource must exist first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only offers the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' hint without explaining side effects, idempotency, whether it modifies the scene file immediately, or what the 'Compatibility' designation implies for behavior (legacy support?).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is front-loaded and efficient with words, but given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, it is inappropriately terse for the domain complexity. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, resembling underspecification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a Godot animation tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description omits critical context such as state naming conventions, positioning within the state machine graph, relationships to transitions, and the meaning of 'Compatibility tool' in the Godot 4.x context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds zero information about the two parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'). It fails to explain what the timeout applies to or what automatic connection occurs, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('Add') and target resource ('AnimationTree state machine state'), clearly positioning it within the Godot animation domain. Distinguishes from generic 'add_node' and transition-related siblings by specifying 'state', though it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a 'state' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_animation_tree' or 'add_state_machine_transition'. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing AnimationTree node) or when to prefer this over removing states. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag is unexplained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It does not explain what happens if the button isn't found, what the tool returns, or why this is labeled a 'Compatibility tool'. The presence of a 'timeoutMs' parameter suggests waiting behavior that should have been described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief at two fragments, but the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical wastes limited space without adding actionable information. The core action is front-loaded, which is good, but the overall length is too minimal given the lack of schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and unclear parameter requirements (implied 'text' parameter missing from schema), the description is severely incomplete. For a UI automation tool, it should describe error handling, search scope, and the 'compatibility' context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to compensate by explaining either 'timeoutMs' (likely wait duration) or 'autoConnect' (unclear what it connects to). Critically, the tool name implies a text content parameter is required, but with 'additionalProperties: true' in the schema, the description must clarify what additional properties are expected, which it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Click button') and the selection mechanism ('by text content'), which distinguishes it from coordinate-based siblings like 'simulate_mouse_click'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and doesn't clarify what compatibility is being maintained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 like 'simulate_mouse_click', 'simulate_action', or 'find_ui_elements'. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at legacy usage but fails to specify preferred modern alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but reveals nothing about side effects, persistence (where the animation is saved), return values, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies regarding behavior differences from standard creation methods.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The two-sentence structure is efficient with no redundant text; every word attempts to convey meaning. However, the extreme brevity contributes to underspecification rather than optimal information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-mutating creation tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks essential context about the Godot Animation resource lifecycle, prerequisite nodes (AnimationPlayer), or integration with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description completely fails to compensate. Critical parameters 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' are undocumented—the agent cannot infer what timeout applies to or what auto-connects to what without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Create new animation') but provides minimal differentiation from siblings like 'create_animation_tree' or 'add_animation_track'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is opaque and doesn't clarify scope or resource type created.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., 'add_animation_track' for modifying existing animations). The 'Compatibility tool' notation hints at a specific use case but fails to explain what compatibility concerns or prerequisites apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral hint is '(Compatibility tool)', which suggests a specific operational mode or limitation but fails to explain what compatibility means, what side effects occur, or what the node creation entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at six words across two fragments. While appropriately sized for a simple tool, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical consumes space without adding actionable value since its meaning is never explained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient for confident tool invocation. It omits explanations for both parameters and leaves the 'Compatibility tool' designation ambiguous, failing to provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's scope or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect). The description completely fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control, what the timeout applies to, or what auto-connection connects to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an 'AnimationTree node', providing a specific verb and resource type. However, it does not explain why one should use this instead of the generic 'add_node' sibling tool, and the '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier is included without definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_node', nor does it explain what 'Compatibility tool' signifies or any prerequisites for invocation. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It identifies the tool as a 'Compatibility tool' (suggesting legacy or alternative behavior) but discloses no side effects, idempotency, failure modes, or state mutation details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at two brief statements. Front-loaded with the primary action. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation, this brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a file-creation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters. The 'Compatibility tool' designation raises questions about behavior that the description doesn't answer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage with two parameters ('timeoutMs', 'autoConnect'). The description completely fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control, what the timeout applies to, or what 'autoConnect' connects to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action ('Create') and resource ('scene file'), but provides no differentiation from siblings like 'add_scene_instance' or 'save_scene'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical introduces ambiguity without explanation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Contains no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The '(Compatibility tool)' note implies specialized usage but fails to specify the compatibility scenario or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose blocking behavior, error handling, script sandboxing limits, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies (deprecated? legacy support?). Does not explain the 'autoConnect' parameter's connection target or timeout behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Severely under-specified for a tool involving script execution with timeout and connection parameters. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds cryptic metadata without value. Extreme brevity here represents missing information, not efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema. Missing: return value format, error conditions, required game state (must be running?), and script input methods (how is the script passed? via additionalProperties?).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no compensation. Silent on 'timeoutMs' (what happens at timeout?) and 'autoConnect' (connect to what?). Ignores 'additionalProperties: true' entirely, leaving the agent unaware of the schema's open-ended parameter acceptance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (execute script) and context (game vs editor), distinguishing it from sibling 'execute_editor_script'. However, 'Compatibility tool' is unexplained jargon, and the description lacks specificity about what the script can access or modify in the game runtime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage exists via 'game context' differentiation from 'execute_editor_script', suggesting use for runtime automation over editor tooling. Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., running game instance), or warnings about side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. While it mentions '(Compatibility tool),' this behavioral hint is unexplained and therefore not actionable. The description does not clarify what 'details' are returned, potential side effects, or why connection-related parameters (`autoConnect`) are present for a getter operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at only two clauses. However, the second clause '(Compatibility tool)' wastes space by introducing ambiguity without explanation, preventing a perfect score despite the brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It fails to define what constitutes an 'autoload node' in this context (Godot engine singletons) or what data structure the agent should expect from the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both `timeoutMs` and `autoConnect`, the description needed to compensate by explaining these parameters. It mentions neither, leaving the agent without information about units (milliseconds), valid ranges, or the relationship between connection parameters and retrieving autoload data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('autoload node details'), providing minimal clarity. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is undefined and confusing, and the description fails to explain what distinguishes this from sibling tools like `add_autoload` or `remove_autoload` beyond the obvious verb difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as `get_node_properties` or `get_scene_tree`. It does not explain the significance of the 'Compatibility tool' label (e.g., whether this is deprecated) or prerequisites for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits. The parameters 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' suggest this connects to a running Godot instance, but the description doesn't explain the connection mechanism, failure modes, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief with no wasted words. However, this conciseness crosses into under-specification. The front-loading is adequate (purpose first, compatibility note second), but there is insufficient content overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of 2 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. For a Godot engine tool that presumably interfaces with physics/collision systems, the lack of explanation about return values, connection requirements, or the 'compatibility' nature of the tool leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It completely fails to explain the two parameters: 'timeoutMs' (what operation times out?) and 'autoConnect' (connect to what? the editor? a running game?). The relationship between these connection-oriented parameters and collision shape retrieval is unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic verb and resource ('Get collision shape information'), but provides no differentiation from siblings like 'setup_collision' or 'get_physics_layers'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds confusing context without explanation of what it is compatible with or why.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'setup_collision', 'get_physics_layers', or other related tools. No mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a selected node or running game instance (implied by the autoConnect parameter).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description discloses no behavioral details: whether the operation is read-only or stateful, what format the returned path takes, error conditions, or the implications of the timeout/autoConnect parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief and front-loaded, consisting of just two fragments. While conciseness is technically achieved, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Severely incomplete for even a 2-parameter tool. The disconnect between the description's 'target' and the actual schema parameters, combined with zero parameter documentation and no output schema description, leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails entirely to compensate. It references a 'target' that does not appear in the schema (despite additionalProperties being true), and omits explanation of the actual parameters timeoutMs and autoConnect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (calculating a navigation path) but leaves the 'target' concept undefined. Does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'navigate_to' or 'move_to' which likely execute rather than calculate paths.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides only the cryptic parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' which hints at legacy usage but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative navigation tools or what compatibility scenarios require it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It offers only the 'Compatibility tool' hint regarding behavior but omits critical details: return value format, what performance metrics are included, side effects, or connection requirements implied by the 'autoConnect' parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely compact at six words plus a parenthetical. While no words are wasted, the brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication given the lack of schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a data retrieval tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema. The description provides no information about return structure, available metrics, or the purpose of the compatibility layer, leaving critical gaps in the agent's understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate for undocumented parameters. It completely fails to explain 'timeoutMs' (connection timeout? collection duration?) or 'autoConnect' (what is being connected to?), leaving parameters semantically opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action ('Get') and resource ('performance monitor values'), but provides no scope boundaries to distinguish from sibling 'get_editor_performance'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is present but cryptic without context about what compatibility it provides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Contains no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions. The 'Compatibility tool' label implies a specific use case but fails to explain when this compatibility mode is needed versus standard monitoring tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. While 'over time' suggests polling/continuous observation, it fails to explain the blocking nature (implied by timeoutMs), return format, what autoConnect connects to, or the implications of additionalProperties: true (likely property name arguments).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only 7 words plus a tag. Every element carries information, and it is front-loaded with the action. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is structurally awkward and lacks context, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and dynamic parameter acceptance (additionalProperties: true), the description is insufficient. It omits critical context such as the monitoring mechanism, expected return data, the meaning of the compatibility warning, and how to specify which properties to monitor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but adds nothing. It fails to explain that timeoutMs controls monitoring duration, what autoConnect connects to, or what additional properties (property names to watch?) should be passed via additionalProperties: true.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action (monitor) and target (property values over time), but lacks specificity about what kind of properties (node, game, editor?) and fails to distinguish from siblings like batch_get_properties or get_node_properties. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag is cryptic and unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' implies deprecation or legacy status, suggesting caution, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like batch_get_properties, nor does it name a preferred replacement. No when-not-to-use scenarios are described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Identifies itself as a 'Compatibility tool' which hints at legacy/deprecated status, but with no annotations, the description fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether transforms are preserved during reparent, signal connection handling, or the meaning of 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse (single sentence with parenthetical). While efficiently structured, it is arguably too minimal given the complete absence of schema documentation and the complexity of node manipulation in Godot.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a node manipulation tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema. Fails to explain the 'Compatibility tool' implications, parameter purposes, or return behavior. The 'additionalProperties: true' flag suggests flexible input that desperately needs documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and accepts 'additionalProperties: true', yet the description provides zero parameter guidance. No explanation of 'timeoutMs' (unusual for a reparent operation), 'autoConnect', or what extra properties are permitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the tool manipulates nodes via 'Move or reparent', but 'Move' is ambiguous (spatial vs. hierarchical) and fails to distinguish from sibling 'move_to'. The 'Compatibility tool' parenthetical adds context but doesn't clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus 'move_to', 'duplicate_node', or 'delete_node'. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., node must exist, target parent constraints) or when reparenting is preferred over other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It does not explain whether navigation uses pathfinding or teleportation, what the timeout encompasses, or what 'autoConnect' connects to. The 'Compatibility' label lacks elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at two short sentences. Information is front-loaded, but 'Compatibility tool' acts as unexplained jargon rather than useful context. Brevity crosses into under-specification given the schema complexity and missing parameter documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations/output schema. The description omits the parameter specification mechanism (additionalProperties), return value behavior, and the nature of the 'actor' being navigated. Requires significant external knowledge to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Critical mismatch: the description references a 'position' parameter not defined in the schema (though additionalProperties allows it), while completely ignoring the two actual defined parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter semantics, formats, or requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (navigate actor to position) with a specific verb and resource, but fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'move_to' which likely performs a similar function. The '(Compatibility tool)' label is present but unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_to' or 'setup_navigation_agent'. The 'Compatibility tool' parenthetical hints at legacy usage but does not clarify when this should be preferred over newer options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only offers the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' note. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: the schema allows arbitrary additional properties (additionalProperties: true), the tool likely spawns a game window/process, and it doesn't indicate whether the call blocks or returns immediately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence and a parenthetical. While efficient in word count, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification rather than effective communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for the tool's complexity. With two undocumented parameters, a flexible schema allowing arbitrary properties, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context for safe and effective invocation. The 'Compatibility tool' note raises questions it doesn't answer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters, and the description adds no information about them. Critically, it fails to explain the significant schema flexibility indicated by 'additionalProperties: true', which allows arbitrary extra arguments—a major behavioral quirk that demands documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (Run scene) and location (from editor), but 'from editor' is ambiguous and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'run_test_scenario' or 'execute_game_script'. The '(Compatibility tool)' label adds minimal context without explaining what compatibility is being maintained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous execution alternatives (run_test_scenario, execute_game_script, simulate_action, etc.). The 'Compatibility tool' parenthetical hints at a specific use case but fails to articulate when this should be preferred or avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Rescan and reload' implies state mutation but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., impact on unsaved changes, open scenes, or connected clients), idempotency, or error conditions like timeout behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the primary action. No filler text. However, the brevity is inappropriate given the lack of schema documentation, though this dimension evaluates structure rather than completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and zero annotation coverage. The description fails to compensate for missing structured metadata, leaving agents uninformed about parameter purposes, return values, or operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'. The description completely omits parameter semantics, failing to explain that timeoutMs controls the operation timeout or that autoConnect manages automatic reconnection behavior. Critical gap given the schema provides no documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action ('Rescan and reload') and resource ('project'), but lacks differentiation from sibling tool 'reload_plugin'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at legacy/deprecated status but remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides minimal guidance via the '(Compatibility tool)' label suggesting backward compatibility use cases, but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or alternatives. Does not clarify when to use this versus 'reload_plugin' or standard project operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only adds the label 'Compatibility tool' without explaining what compatibility issues exist, whether this performs a destructive update, or how it handles node references. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief with no wasted words. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and front-loaded information about the tool's nature would be better integrated with usage guidance rather than appended ambiguously.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich sibling tool ecosystem (100+ tools), lack of output schema, and the odd input schema (generic connection params instead of rename fields), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the schema structure or what data should be passed via additionalProperties.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description fails to compensate. It does not explain the unusual absence of rename-specific parameters (like node_path or new_name) despite 'additionalProperties: true', nor clarify the purpose of timeoutMs and autoConnect in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (rename) and resource (node) clearly, but the '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier is unexplained and confusing. It does not effectively distinguish why this tool exists alongside sibling node manipulation tools like move_node or duplicate_node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The '(Compatibility tool)' label hints at specific usage constraints but fails to explain them or mention preferred alternatives, leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Set' implies mutation but lacks details on overwrite behavior, interpolation handling, or what 'Compatibility tool' means (deprecated? legacy?). No disclosure of side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (4 words), which prevents verbosity. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without providing actionable information, representing wasted potential in an already minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Animation keyframes are complex (requiring track identification, time, value, interpolation), yet the description offers no details on usage patterns. Combined with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for reliable agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and includes additionalProperties: true, implying arbitrary key-value pairs are expected for the actual keyframe data (track, time, value). Description fails to document these expected properties or explain the purpose of timeoutMs/autoConnect, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action (set) and target (keyframe value), but '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained and adds confusion. Does not clarify scope (e.g., which animation/track) or differentiate from siblings like add_animation_track beyond the implied verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_animation_track or create_animation. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing animation/track) or when keyframes should be added vs modified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. While 'Configure' implies mutation, the description fails to explain what '(Compatibility tool)' means regarding side effects, deprecation status, or state changes. No information on idempotency or safety is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (9 words) and front-loaded with the verb. However, given the complete lack of structured documentation elsewhere, this brevity becomes under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the tool requires a descriptive burden that the text fails to meet. The cryptic 'Compatibility tool' note raises questions without answering them, and the parameter semantics are left entirely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the two parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'), but it does not. It vaguely references 'properties' without mapping them to the actual parameters or explaining the 'additionalProperties: true' pattern for arbitrary bus property configuration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action ('Configure') and target ('audio bus properties'), but fails to distinguish from sibling 'add_audio_bus' (creation vs. modification). The '(Compatibility tool)' annotation is present but unexplained, leaving the scope and intent ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'add_audio_bus', 'get_audio_bus_layout', or 'get_audio_info'. The 'Compatibility tool' parenthetical hints at special usage but provides no actionable criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses almost no behavioral traits. It mentions 'compatibility' without explaining the implications (e.g., deprecated features, specific version requirements), and fails to state side effects, idempotency, or what 'setting up' actually entails (e.g., creating default lights vs. configuring existing ones).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief with no redundant words or filler. However, this conciseness crosses into under-specification—every word earns its place, but there are too few words to adequately describe the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of schema descriptions, annotations, and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It omits critical context about the parameters, the 'compatibility' nature of the tool, and expected outcomes of the setup operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect), and the description fails to compensate by explaining what the timeout applies to (operation duration? light fade?) or what autoConnect connects to. The agent has no textual guidance for interpreting these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (lighting nodes) and hints at the domain (compatibility), but uses the vague verb 'set up' without clarifying whether it creates, configures, or initializes nodes. It distinguishes from siblings by the 'compatibility' label but doesn't explain what makes this different from generic node addition tools like add_node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' implies this may be a legacy or secondary method, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like add_node, nor does it state prerequisites for the lighting setup. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information beyond the basic action. The 'Compatibility tool' label suggests legacy status but does not clarify whether the operation overwrites existing tiles, what the default fill value is, or execution side effects. For a mutation tool with significant undocumented parameters, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single terse sentence with a parenthetical qualifier, containing no redundant or extraneous language. While appropriately brief, it may be excessively concise given the tool's apparent complexity and the undocumented parameter schema. The structure front-loads the action but sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is inadequate for a tool that appears to require specific geometric and asset parameters not documented in the schema. With no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete input schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the fill behavior, expected parameters, and return values, but it does not. The '(Compatibility tool)' note raises questions about the tool's status that remain unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two defined parameters and uses additionalProperties: true to accept undocumented parameters likely required for the operation (presumably coordinates, dimensions, and tile ID). The description completely fails to mention what parameters define the rectangle or fill value, leaving agents with no guidance on required inputs. Given the schema's incompleteness, this silence on parameter semantics is a critical failure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool fills a rectangular area in a tilemap, which provides a clear basic action distinct from siblings like tilemap_set_cell. However, it fails to specify what tile ID or value is used to perform the fill, and the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical lacks explanation. While the core verb and resource are present, missing specifics prevent a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tilemap_set_cell for individual cells. The '(Compatibility tool)' notation hints at potential deprecation but does not explicitly state whether users should prefer newer tools or what those alternatives might be. Without clear when-to-use instructions, agents cannot make informed selection decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only adds the '(Compatibility tool)' context without explaining return format, coordinate system, performance characteristics, or what 'used' means (non-empty tiles? specific layers?).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at only four words plus a parenthetical. No filler or redundant text—every word earns its place. However, the brevity crosses into underspecification rather than optimal efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description omits critical context such as return data structure, coordinate format, or array dimensions. The two parameters remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps in the contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'), yet the description fails to explain what these parameters control or their relationship to the tilemap operation. No compensation for the undocumented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('List used tile cells') but remains vague about what constitutes a 'used' cell. It fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'tilemap_get_cell' (which presumably retrieves a single cell) and only adds the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical beyond restating the function name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives like 'tilemap_get_cell' or 'tilemap_get_info'. The '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests legacy usage but does not specify when to prefer this over newer alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Register' implies a write operation to project settings, but description fails to disclose persistence behavior, required editor state, or side effects. The 'compatibility' label is the only behavioral hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (5 words), but underspecified rather than efficiently distilled. The parenthetical is compressed but not informative enough to earn its place given the information gaps elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a project-modifying tool. Lacks explanation of what constitutes a valid autoload, expected lifecycle, interaction with the 'autoConnect' parameter, and return behavior (no output schema exists to compensate).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Complete failure to compensate for 0% schema description coverage. Description mentions neither 'timeoutMs' nor 'autoConnect', leaving critical parameters undocumented. No explanation of what timeout applies to or what auto-connect establishes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the specific action (Register) and target resource (autoload singleton). Distinguishes from siblings 'get_autoload' and 'remove_autoload' by verb choice, though assumes familiarity with Godot's autoload concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides only the cryptic parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' which hints at legacy usage but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like manual singleton instantiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only offers the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' note without explaining what compatibility issues exist, what side effects occur (scene modification, persistence), or why connection-related parameters are present for a mesh creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief at two sentences and front-loaded with the core action, but given the 0% schema coverage and parameter mismatch, it is insufficiently informative rather than admirably concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and the apparent architectural complexity (remote Godot editor manipulation), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the connection requirement implied by the parameters or the return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters, and the description completely fails to compensate by explaining what these connection-related parameters mean in the context of adding a mesh instance, or what values are appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (Add), resource type (MeshInstance3D), and specific variant (with primitive mesh), distinguishing it from generic add_node or add_scene_instance siblings. However, it doesn't clarify the execution context (e.g., whether this operates on the active Godot editor instance).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_node or add_scene_instance, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an active Godot connection despite the presence of autoConnect and timeoutMs parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. The 'Compatibility tool' note adds minimal behavioral context (legacy/deprecated status), but the description fails to state whether this is destructive, requires an open scene, or what happens on timeout.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief single sentence. While efficiently worded, it is underspecified given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations; it prioritizes brevity over necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (adds nodes) with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage in a complex Godot environment with many specialized alternatives, the description is inadequate. It should explain the additionalProperties contract and timeout behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for timeoutMs and autoConnect. The description mentions 'optional properties' which aligns with additionalProperties: true, but completely ignores the two explicit parameters defined in the schema, leaving their purpose undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Add node' which is clear, but references 'type' which is absent from the schema properties (only additionalProperties: true exists), creating confusion about how to specify the node type. Fails to distinguish from specific sibling tools like add_mesh_instance or add_gridmap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides only the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' as usage context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this generic add_node versus the specialized add_* siblings (add_animation_track, add_mesh_instance, etc.) or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to explain what 'analyze' entails (return format, scope), what risks or side effects exist, or what 'compatibility' refers to. Critically, it does not clarify whether the autoConnect parameter performs writes or is purely analytical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two short statements), which avoids verbosity, but the '(Compatibility tool)' tag is cryptically placed and the front-loaded sentence provides minimal value. Appropriate length for the content provided, though content is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps. It does not explain the return value, the implications of additionalProperties: true, or the specific Godot engine context required to interpret 'signal graph' correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect. The description fails to compensate by explaining these parameters—particularly autoConnect, which suggests mutating behavior that contradicts the 'analyze' verb, and timeoutMs, which implies potential long-running or blocking operations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States it analyzes a 'signal graph in project' which conveys the general domain (Godot signals), but 'analyze' is vague regarding what kind of analysis is performed (static, dynamic, validation?). Fails to distinguish from siblings like find_signal_connections or get_signals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling signal-related tools (find_signal_connections, get_signals, connect_signal). The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at a specific use case but is too cryptic to be actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify failure modes (exceptions vs return values), blocking behavior (does it wait for the timeout?), or side effects. The 'Compatibility tool' label lacks explanation of what compatibility it ensures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact at only five words plus a parenthetical. While efficiently worded without redundancy, it errs on the side of under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness, omitting essential usage context that would help an agent construct valid invocations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of additionalProperties: true (suggesting a flexible key-value assertion interface), the description is inadequate. It lacks output schema coverage, provides no example of assertion syntax, and fails to explain how the two documented parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) interact with the property assertions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'node property value' hints at the purpose, the description fails to explain the critical additionalProperties pattern (where actual property assertions are passed), or clarify the semantics of timeoutMs (wait duration for condition?) and autoConnect (connect to what?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Assert') and target ('node property value'), but remains vague about scope. It fails to explain the tool's unique capability (accepting arbitrary properties via additionalProperties) or distinguish clearly from sibling assert_screen_text, which also performs assertions but on screen content rather than node properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' provides minimal context about the tool's nature but offers no actionable guidance on when to use this versus other assertion tools, nor does it explain prerequisites (e.g., node must exist) or what constitutes a successful assertion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether 'assert' means throwing an exception versus returning a boolean, what happens on timeout (given the timeoutMs parameter), or the significance of the 'Compatibility tool' designation (e.g., deprecated vs. legacy protocol).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief (two short sentences), but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment wastes space without providing actionable information. The main clause is front-loaded effectively, though extreme brevity undermines utility given the schema complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an assertion tool with polling behavior (implied by timeoutMs) and flexible inputs (additionalProperties: true), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of failure modes, return values, text matching semantics (substring vs exact), and why additional properties are accepted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description completely fails to compensate. It does not mention the existence of the timeoutMs or autoConnect parameters, nor does it hint at what additional properties (via additionalProperties: true) are expected—most critically, the text string to search for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Assert') and target ('screen text is visible'), distinguishing it from sibling assertion tools like assert_node_state. However, the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds confusion without explanation, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like find_ui_elements or click_button_by_text, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active game instance or screenshot context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It does not clarify what 'batch' entails (parallel vs sequential), error handling for partial failures, or whether this operation is read-only/safe. The compatibility note lacks behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief and front-loaded, the description is overly terse for the complexity involved. The two-sentence structure wastes the second sentence on an unexplained parenthetical rather than documenting the parameter scheme or return value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and the 'additionalProperties' pattern requiring documentation, the description is incomplete. It omits return value structure, batch size limits, and the specific input format needed to specify which nodes/properties to fetch.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and uses 'additionalProperties: true', implying arbitrary node/property identifiers should be passed. The description completely fails to explain this critical input contract or what the additional properties represent, leaving the agent unaware of required parameters like node paths or property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Read') and resource ('multiple node properties in batch'), distinguishing it from single-read siblings like get_node_properties. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained, leaving ambiguity about why/when to prefer this over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like get_node_properties, get_game_node_properties, or batch_set_property. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at legacy usage but fails to specify migration paths or deprecation status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Fails to explain: (1) that additionalProperties allows arbitrary property key-values, (2) what timeoutMs measures (operation timeout? connection timeout?), (3) what autoConnect connects to, or (4) side effects on scene states. 'Compatibility tool' suggests legacy behavior but doesn't explain constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (6 words). The core action is front-loaded. However, given the tool's complexity (cross-scene mutations, timeout behavior, arbitrary property support), this is under-specification masquerading as conciseness rather than appropriate brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Severely incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations. No output schema means description should explain return behavior or success/failure modes. Doesn't address: thread safety, scene loading requirements, transaction scope (all-or-nothing vs partial), or relationship to sibling batch_set_property. The additionalProperties capability alone warrants significant documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no parameter documentation. Critical omissions: timeoutMs semantics, autoConnect purpose, and crucially, that additionalProperties=true means users can pass arbitrary property names/values to be set. The description ignores the schema's extensibility entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (Set) and scope (property across scenes), distinguishing it from single-node property setters like set_node_properties. However, 'across scenes' is ambiguous—does it mean multiple scenes simultaneously or persistence across scene transitions? The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds context but remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Contains no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The '(Compatibility tool)' notation hints this may not be the preferred method, but fails to specify what the modern alternative is or when this specific tool is actually required. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It fails to explain the implications of the 'compatibility tool' designation, whether deletion is permanent, or how it handles child nodes. The only behavioral hint is the cryptic parenthetical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the primary action, but it is too terse for a destructive operation with undocumented parameters. The 'compatibility tool' aside wastes space without adding usable context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with zero schema documentation for its two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the parameters' purposes and the 'compatibility' context, but provides neither.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the tool description provides no information about the timeoutMs or autoConnect parameters. These parameters are non-obvious for a deletion operation and require explanation, which the description completely omits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Delete node from scene') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like add_node or delete_scene. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is unexplained and could confuse an agent about whether this is the preferred deletion method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., node existence checks). The 'compatibility tool' label hints there may be a preferred alternative, but it is not named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies destruction, the description fails to clarify whether this removes the file from disk or just the project, whether it is reversible, or why connection-related parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) are present. The 'compatibility' label is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two short segments), which qualifies as concise, but the '(Compatibility tool)' addition lacks sufficient context to earn its place. The structure is front-loaded but overly terse given the complexity of a destructive file operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is dangerously incomplete. It lacks safety warnings, return value documentation, and explanation of the connection-oriented parameters (timeoutMs/autoConnect) evident in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, yet the description provides no compensatory information. Crucially, it fails to explain how to specify which scene file to delete (the schema allows additionalProperties, suggesting a path/name parameter exists but is undocumented), rendering the tool potentially unusable without trial and error.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Delete') and resource ('scene file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_node' or 'remove_animation'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained, slightly diminishing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'remove_autoload' or 'save_scene', nor does it explain the significance of it being a 'compatibility' tool. No prerequisites or warnings are included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Edit' implies mutation but the description doesn't clarify if this is destructive, what happens to unspecified properties, or why connection-related parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) are present. The 'Compatibility tool' note suggests special behavior but remains unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (4 words plus parenthetical), but given the complexity (additionalProperties: true, 0% schema coverage, unclear parameter mapping), it is insufficiently informative rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for the tool's complexity. With dynamic parameters via additionalProperties, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools suggesting a complex domain (Godot engine), the description should explain the parameter passing pattern, return values, and compatibility implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate. It doesn't explain that actual resource properties likely pass through additionalProperties, nor does it clarify the purpose of timeoutMs and autoConnect (which appear to be connection parameters rather than resource editing parameters).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action ('Edit resource properties') but remains generic. While 'Compatibility tool' provides some distinction, it fails to differentiate from siblings like update_property, batch_set_property, or create_resource regarding specific use cases or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_property for single values, batch_set_property for multiple, or read_resource for inspection). The '(Compatibility tool)' label hints at legacy usage but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses almost nothing about side effects (does this write files to disk?), safety (is it destructive?), or execution model (blocking vs async). The dual 'get' vs 'trigger' behavior is mentioned but not explained, leaving critical behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at two short phrases. While efficient in word economy, the conciseness crosses into under-specification given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool likely performing project exports (potentially long-running, file-writing operations), the description lacks essential details: return value format (command string? status object?), export output location, and the significance of the 'Compatibility tool' designation. No output schema exists to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' undocumented in the structured fields. The description adds no context for these parameters—particularly 'autoConnect' (connect to what?)—and fails to explain how they influence the ambiguous 'get' versus 'trigger' behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the domain (export) and mentions two possible actions: 'Get export command' or 'trigger export'. However, it fails to clarify whether these are distinct modes, conditional behaviors, or synonymous actions, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'get_export_info' or 'list_export_presets'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at legacy status but fails to specify what should be used instead or under what circumstances this tool remains appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose what 'nearby' means (units, measurement method), what the return value contains, or how to interpret the results. The existence of 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters suggests network or async behavior that the description completely ignores.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence + fragment), but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment wastes space without adding actionable information. Given the lack of schema documentation, the description is too terse rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and only 2 optional parameters, the tool requires more descriptive context. The description fails to explain the spatial query mechanism, the purpose of the timeout, or what 'autoConnect' connects to, leaving significant operational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It mentions 'by position' implying coordinates are required, but these are not defined in the schema properties (only additionalProperties: true). It fails to explain 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect', leaving critical behavioral parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (find nodes) and criterion (by position), but 'nearby' is undefined (distance? radius? viewport?) and '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic without explanation. It minimally distinguishes from sibling 'find_nodes_by_type' via the spatial aspect, but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' suggests a specific use case but fails to explain what compatibility it provides or when to prefer this over other find_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to explain what the tool returns (element IDs, coordinates, node paths?), the polling behavior implied by 'timeoutMs', or what 'autoConnect' connects to. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at special behavior but remains unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two fragments), but brevity is not virtue here given the complete lack of schema documentation. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag appears to be an implementation detail that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool correctly, wasting precious descriptive space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain return values, error conditions, and runtime requirements. It provides none of these. An agent cannot determine if this returns a list, a count, or success/failure, nor how it differs from other find operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by providing zero information about the parameters. It does not explain what connection autoConnect establishes, what timeoutMs waits for, or what units/ranges are expected—critical omissions given the schema silence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (Find) and target (UI elements in game), distinguishing it from editor-only tools via 'in game'. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is ambiguous—it could imply legacy status, testing purpose, or rendering pipeline context without clarification. It also fails to differentiate from sibling 'find_nodes_by_type' which could locate UI elements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives like 'find_nodes_by_type', 'click_button_by_text', or 'get_game_node_properties'. Given the timeoutMs parameter suggests polling/waiting behavior, the description should indicate this is for runtime automation/testing scenarios, but it does not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers almost none. It does not explain what the 'summary' contains (metrics, FPS, memory?), what the connection behavior implied by 'autoConnect' entails, or how the timeout affects the operation. The 'compatibility' label is stated but not defined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two fragments), which is efficient for a simple getter, but the '(Compatibility tool)' phrase consumes space without adding actionable value due to lack of explanation. Front-loaded structure is adequate but the terseness crosses into under-specification given the lack of supporting metadata.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not describe the return format, structure of the performance summary, or side effects (e.g., does it initiate a connection? does it block?). With 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description needed to provide this context but omitted it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect), yet the description fails to compensate by explaining their purpose, valid ranges, or interaction effects. The parameters are somewhat self-explanatory but undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action ('Get') and resource ('editor performance summary'), but fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'get_performance_monitors'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at specialized behavior but remains cryptic without explanation of what makes it a compatibility tool or when to prefer it over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'get_performance_monitors' or other performance-related tools. Does not explain the significance of the 'compatibility' designation (e.g., whether this is deprecated, legacy-only, or handles specific edge cases), leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 what is captured but fails to explain the return format (file path, base64, binary data), the effect of timeoutMs on rendering, or what autoConnect does. The 'compatibility tool' label hints at special behavior but remains opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at six words plus a parenthetical, but the space is poorly utilized. The '(Compatibility tool)' annotation consumes characters without adding actionable information, while critical details about parameters and return values are omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description should explain what the tool returns (image data format) and clarify the connection-related parameters, given the lack of structured metadata elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description completely fails to compensate. Neither timeoutMs (controls screenshot capture timeout) nor autoConnect (likely handles connection logic) are mentioned or explained, leaving both parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Capture) and resource (editor viewport screenshot), distinguishing it from sibling tool 'get_game_screenshot'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained and potentially confusing without context about what compatibility it refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_game_screenshot' or 'compare_screenshots'. Does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an active editor connection or when the timeout parameter should be adjusted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not clarify what 'Compatibility tool' means (deprecated? specific renderer mode?), nor does it disclose return format, potential errors, or state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but the '(Compatibility tool)' remark wastes space without explanation. It is appropriately concise but underspecified for the complexity of the tool's context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It should explain what 'export configuration info' entails (presets, paths, settings) and what the 'compatibility' label signifies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to compensate by explaining the semantic purpose of timeoutMs (timeout for what operation?) or autoConnect (connect to what?). The schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds no meaning beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('export configuration info'), but fails to distinguish from sibling tools like list_export_presets or export_project. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and unexplained, leaving the tool's specific scope ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus list_export_presets or export_project. No mention of prerequisites, side effects, or why this is labeled a 'compatibility tool'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but offers minimal behavioral context. The 'runtime' hint suggests it targets a running game instance, and 'Compatibility tool' cryptically hints at legacy status, but it omits connection requirements, caching behavior, and return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at two phrases, but the '(Compatibility tool)' tag consumes space without adding actionable information. The lack of parameter or output documentation makes this under-specification rather than efficient precision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a complex game-engine integration tool with no output schema or annotations. The description omits critical context: how runtime connection is established, what the returned property format looks like, and why this is labeled a compatibility tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Completely fails to compensate for 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions nothing about timeoutMs (connection timeout?), autoConnect (auto-connection behavior?), or the significance of additionalProperties: true (which likely carries the actual node property requests).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action ('Read') and target ('runtime node properties'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_node_properties via the 'runtime' qualifier. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is unexplained and doesn't explicitly clarify when to prefer alternatives like monitor_properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_node_properties (editor-time) or batch_get_properties, nor does it explain the prerequisites for accessing 'runtime' properties (e.g., requiring an active game connection).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals nothing about the return format, what 'input actions' contain, side effects of autoConnect, or blocking behavior implied by timeoutMs. The 'compatibility' label is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two fragments), but the second fragment '(Compatibility tool)' wastes space without explanation. Front-loading is adequate, though the cryptic parenthetical detracts from the actual payload.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the Godot-specific domain (input action maps), the connection mechanism (autoConnect), or why this is labeled a compatibility tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for timeoutMs and autoConnect. The description adds no semantic meaning for these parameters, leaving the agent to guess that timeoutMs controls operation duration and autoConnect handles connection establishment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action ('List') and resource ('input actions'), but '(Compatibility tool)' is vague and undefined. Fails to distinguish from siblings like set_input_action or simulate_action regarding when listing is preferred over other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at deprecation or legacy status but fails to specify what the preferred alternative is, leaving the agent without actionable selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify the return format (file paths? content? metadata?), error conditions (e.g., if the editor is closed), or side effects. The 'Compatibility tool' label is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, which is efficient, but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' wastes space without explaining its significance. Given the lack of structured documentation, this brevity becomes underspecification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should explain the parameters' functions or the return value structure, but provides neither, leaving critical gaps in the agent's understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect), and the description does nothing to compensate for this gap. An agent would have to guess the purpose of these parameters based solely on their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists scripts that are currently open in the editor, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_scripts' tool, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the names alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'list_scripts' or 'read_script'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at specific use cases but is too cryptic to be actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails to specify return format, content structure, or what 'compatibility tool' implies (deprecated? alternative API?). It doesn't mention the timeout behavior or auto-connection logic implied by the parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, consisting of one sentence plus a parenthetical. While efficiently structured, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise given the lack of schema documentation and annotations. The '(Compatibility tool)' phrase earns some contextual value but remains unexplained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description should explain parameter semantics and return values. It provides neither, leaving critical gaps. The 'compatibility tool' hint suggests additional context but remains opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description completely fails to compensate, omitting any mention of 'timeoutMs' (connection timeout behavior) or 'autoConnect' (automatic connection logic). The description provides zero semantic meaning for the two available parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('editor output log'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_editor_errors' and 'clear_output'. However, it doesn't clarify what content the output log contains (e.g., stdout, warnings, print statements) or elaborate on the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'get_editor_errors' or 'get_test_report', nor when to prefer it over other logging tools. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag suggests legacy usage but offers no explicit recommendations or prerequisites for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It hints at a 'compatibility' status without explaining what that means for behavior, side effects, or versioning. Crucially, with no output schema present, the description fails to specify what 'details' are returned or their structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (6 words), which superficially appears efficient, but the '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier wastes space without explanation. It is front-loaded but under-specified to the point of being cryptic rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of particle systems, the absence of an output schema, and the undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It should explain the return value format and parameter semantics but instead provides only a high-level resource identifier insufficient for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters. The description completely fails to compensate for this gap by not mentioning these parameters, their interaction with the particle system, or why a network-like timeout and auto-connect mechanism exists for retrieving particle info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a clear verb-resource pair ('Get particle system details') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_particles' or 'set_particle_material'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' introduces unexplained ambiguity about whether this is deprecated or legacy functionality without clarifying the implications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'create_particles' or 'apply_particle_preset'. It fails to explain the significance of it being a 'compatibility tool'—whether users should avoid it in favor of newer alternatives or when it is specifically required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose return format, data structure (e.g., 32-bit integers, layer names), or what 'compatibility' means. 'Get' implies read-only but return value semantics are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (6 words), which is efficient but insufficient given the information debt from missing annotations and schema descriptions. Front-loaded with the action, but the parenthetical compatibility note is cryptic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a physics-system tool with no output schema. Fails to explain return values, doesn't compensate for 0% schema coverage, and leaves 'compatibility' unexplained despite this being crucial context for a Godot development tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage (timeoutMs, autoConnect undocumented), yet the description provides no parameter semantics. Critical gap since these generic parameter names give no indication of their function (Godot connection timeout? Operation timeout?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('collision layer and mask'), distinguishing it from sibling 'set_physics_layers'. However, it lacks domain context about what these layers represent in Godot's physics system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only hints at usage through '(Compatibility tool)' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'get_collision_info' or 'setup_collision', nor what 'compatibility' implies (legacy Godot versions?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that the tool accepts arbitrary additional properties (additionalProperties: true), does not explain the connection behavior implied by 'autoConnect' and 'timeoutMs' parameters, and omits what format or structure the resource properties return in.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at two short sentences. While not verbose, it is insufficiently informative for a tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations; the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description should explain the return value, connection behavior, and scope of 'resource properties.' It provides none of this, leaving critical gaps in the agent's understanding of how to invoke the tool or what to expect from it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not mention either parameter. While 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no context about what connection timeout or auto-connection refers to in this resource-reading context, nor does it document the additionalProperties capability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Read') and target ('resource properties'), which aligns with the tool name. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like 'get_resource_preview' or 'edit_resource' (which may also read), and the '(Compatibility tool)' note lacks explanation of what compatibility means or which alternative to use instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage hint is the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)', implying legacy or fallback usage, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'edit_resource', 'create_resource', or 'get_resource_preview', nor does it explain the compatibility scenario or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The 'Compatibility tool' hint suggests deprecated or legacy behavior but doesn't explain what that means for the agent (should it avoid this tool?). Fails to disclose what the timeout/connect parameters imply about the operation's blocking behavior or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two fragments), which limits redundancy, but the second fragment ('Compatibility tool') is unactionable without explanation. Appropriately front-loaded with the core verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and mysterious connection parameters, the description leaves critical gaps. It doesn't explain error conditions (file not found?), return format (string content? lines?), or the connection lifecycle implied by the parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description completely omits any explanation of 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect'. For a 'read' operation, these connection-related parameters are non-obvious and require semantic context that is absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (Read script file content) but provides no scope clarification—which script? Currently open? By path? The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained. It distinguishes from 'edit' or 'create' siblings by verb choice, but doesn't clarify vs 'get_open_scripts' or 'validate_script'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus 'edit_script', 'validate_script', or 'get_open_scripts'. No prerequisites stated (e.g., must a script be open? Must the engine be running given the connection-related parameters?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Unregister' implies removal from a registry, it fails to clarify whether this destroys the singleton instance, affects running scenes, or requires editor recompilation. The 'Compatibility tool' label lacks elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately front-loaded with the primary verb, and the single parenthetical doesn't waste space. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, this conciseness results in under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to compensate significantly. It fails to do so, leaving the parameters unexplained, the 'compatibility' aspect undefined, and behavioral side effects undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), and the description adds no semantic meaning for these settings. The agent cannot determine why a timeout or connection setting would be relevant to unregistering an autoload singleton.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Unregister') and target resource ('autoload singleton'), distinguishing it from sibling 'add_autoload'. However, it assumes familiarity with Godot's autoload pattern without explaining what a 'singleton' means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at a specific use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'add_autoload', nor does it explain what makes it a compatibility tool or when unregistering is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether replaying is destructive (modifies game state), blocking (synchronous), or how it handles failures. The 'Compatibility tool' note suggests legacy behavior but doesn't explain what compatibility issues exist or what side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at six words across two sentences. Information is front-loaded with no filler. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, this brevity is insufficient rather than efficient—every sentence earns its place, but there aren't enough of them.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Severely incomplete for a complex operation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema. Missing critical context: relationship to start_recording/stop_recording lifecycle, format of acceptable recordings, state side effects, and return behavior. The additionalProperties: true flag in the schema suggests hidden parameters that are entirely undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no descriptions for timeoutMs or autoConnect. The description adds no parameter context—e.g., what the timeout applies to (total replay duration? connection timeout?), what autoConnect connects to, or what additionalProperties might contain. It provides only domain context (replay) implying timeout might relate to operation duration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action (replay) and target (recorded input), but 'recorded input' is vague—it doesn't clarify if this refers to recordings from start_recording or macro files. It fails to distinguish from simulate_sequence or other playback siblings, and 'Compatibility tool' raises questions about scope without answering them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' hints at a specific use case but provides no actionable guidance on when to use this versus simulate_sequence or other input methods. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., a recording must exist) or when to prefer alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether this modifies the project state, what constitutes a 'scenario', what the return value indicates, or side effects. The term 'Compatibility tool' is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (one sentence plus fragment), which technically avoids fluff, but the brevity is inappropriate given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting schema documentation. Information density is low relative to what is needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a testing tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. The description omits: the nature of test scenarios, how to configure them (given additionalProperties), output format, and relationship to the broader testing ecosystem evident in sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and 'additionalProperties: true', indicating arbitrary extra parameters are accepted—neither fact is mentioned in the description. While 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' are somewhat self-descriptive, the description fails to explain what timeout applies to or what auto-connect connects to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (run test scenario) but lacks specificity regarding what exactly is being tested (scene, project, unit tests?) and does not distinguish from sibling tool 'run_stress_test'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'run_stress_test', 'assert_node_state', or other testing siblings. No prerequisites, success criteria, or failure modes mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to mention return format (file list? paths?), whether the search is recursive, case sensitivity, or performance characteristics. 'Compatibility tool' suggests deprecated behavior but doesn't explain what that entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse with zero redundancy. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and presence of additionalProperties, the description is arguably too concise—omitting critical parameter details that would fit in a slightly longer description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for the tool's complexity. With no output schema, 0% input schema coverage, and additionalProperties enabled, the description should specify expected return values and the structure of pattern/glob arguments. The two-sentence format cannot cover necessary implementation details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters but mentions neither. It vaguely hints at 'pattern or glob' inputs (relevant given additionalProperties: true), but doesn't specify parameter names, syntax, or formats required for the actual search functionality.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (search files) and method (pattern/glob), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'search_in_files' which likely performs content search. The '(Compatibility tool)' label adds some context but doesn't clarify functional differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at legacy usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'search_in_files' or other file-related tools. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the 'Compatibility tool' notation, which hints at deprecation or legacy behavior, but fails to explain mutation scope, required permissions, error conditions, or what happens to existing anchor settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but inappropriately terse given the complete lack of schema documentation. The '(Compatibility tool)' aside is useful but cryptic; the description wastes no words yet fails to earn its keep by omitting critical parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits available preset values, Control node prerequisites, the meaning of 'Compatibility tool,' and return value information necessary for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'), yet the description provides no compensation—failing to explain what values are expected for anchor presets, parameter relationships, or why connection-related parameters exist on an anchor tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Set'), resource ('anchor preset'), and target ('Control node'), distinguishing it from generic property setters like 'set_game_node_property' or 'set_node_groups' in the sibling list. However, it assumes familiarity with Godot's Control node system without briefly explaining what anchor presets accomplish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical implies legacy usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'set_game_node_property' or other node manipulation tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative approaches are documented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions 'runtime' (indicating it affects running game instances) and 'Compatibility tool' (suggesting legacy support), but lacks critical details about side effects, persistence, or the meaning of the timeout behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at only six words plus a parenthetical. No filler content, though the brevity contributes to under-specification. The parenthetical is appropriately placed at the end.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate given the tool's capability for arbitrary property setting via additionalProperties and zero schema documentation. Without output schema or annotations, the description should elaborate on the property-setting mechanism, possible errors, or return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It fails to document 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect', nor does it explain that 'additionalProperties: true' allows passing arbitrary node property names as keys. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the current description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action (Set runtime node property) with a specific verb and resource, but fails to differentiate from similar siblings like 'set_game_node_properties' (plural) or 'batch_set_property'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at legacy status but doesn't clarify scope limitations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the plural 'set_game_node_properties' or 'batch_set_property'. Given the 'Compatibility tool' label, it should explicitly state whether this is deprecated or when the modern alternatives are preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to explain side effects (does this modify project.godot?), persistence, required permissions, or the significance of 'Compatibility tool'. Only the upsert behavior ('Create or update') is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment consumes space without adding actionable context. Given the high complexity implied by 'additionalProperties: true', the description is inappropriately terse rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that presumably mutates Godot's InputMap configuration, the description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of the two documented parameters, the open-ended schema, expected return behavior, and interaction with the Godot editor's input system. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description, which is not met.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and includes 'additionalProperties: true', suggesting arbitrary configuration properties are accepted. The description completely fails to compensate for this, providing no explanation of 'timeoutMs' (timeout for what?), 'autoConnect' (connect to what?), or what additional properties constitute a valid input action configuration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core operation ('Create or update') and resource ('input action'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_input_actions'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is opaque and unexplained, slightly weakening the overall clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'get_input_actions' or 'simulate_action'. There is no mention of prerequisites, idempotency considerations, or whether this requires a specific Godot editor state (e.g., project open).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden but only provides the '(Compatibility tool)' note. It fails to explain critical behavioral aspects: how the target shader is identified, that parameters are likely passed via additionalProperties (evident in schema), timeout behavior, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at only 5 words. While not verbose, the extreme brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication given the tool's complexity (additionalProperties pattern, 2 undocumented timeout/connection params).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Incomplete for a tool utilizing additionalProperties (suggesting dynamic parameter passing) with no output schema. The description omits how to structure the shader parameter payload, what the timeoutMs controls, and what success/failure behavior to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for timeoutMs and autoConnect, and the critical shader/uniform/value parameters apparently passed via additionalProperties (inferred from schema), the description completely fails to explain the parameter contract. No mention of which parameters define the shader target, uniform name, or value to set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action (Set) and target resource (shader uniform value), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_shader_params, create_shader, and edit_shader. The '(Compatibility tool)' annotation provides additional categorization context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives like assign_shader_material or edit_shader. The '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests legacy usage but does not explicitly state when this tool is preferred over newer approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but omits critical behavioral details: it doesn't explain what 'Compatibility tool' implies for behavior, side effects, persistence, or that the tool accepts arbitrary additional properties (additionalProperties: true in schema) which appears to be the primary mechanism for passing parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (6 words) with no filler. However, it may be overly terse—sacrificing necessary explanatory content for brevity. The core action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and the complex additionalProperties mechanism, the description is inadequate. It flags the tool as a 'Compatibility tool' but doesn't explain the implications, parameter structure, or expected inputs sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to compensate. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect', nor does it clarify that actual AnimationTree parameters must be passed via additionalProperties (arbitrary keys), which is essential given the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Set AnimationTree parameter') identifying the verb and resource, but the '(Compatibility tool)' label is unexplained jargon. It fails to differentiate from siblings like 'set_blend_tree_node' or 'set_game_node_property'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' vaguely suggests limited or legacy use, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it name the preferred modern replacement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at behavioral traits (legacy/deprecated status) but provides no explanation of what that means for usage, side effects, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at only 5 words plus a parenthetical. No wasted words, though the brevity is insufficient given the complete lack of structured documentation and parameter descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides inadequate detail. The mismatch between the described purpose (configuring physics properties) and actual parameters (timeout/autoConnect) leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'properties' but fails to explain the actual parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), which appear to be operational/connection settings rather than physics body properties, creating confusion about what this tool actually configures.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the verb (Configure) and resource (physics body) but uses vague scope ('properties') and fails to distinguish from siblings like setup_collision or clarify which properties are being configured.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain the implications of the '(Compatibility tool)' designation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but omits critical behavioral details: what 'autoConnect' connects to, what happens when 'timeoutMs' is reached, whether the simulation triggers actual game logic, and what 'additionalProperties: true' implies for action parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently worded (4 words plus parenthetical) and front-loaded with the verb, but it is inappropriately terse given the complete absence of schema documentation and annotations. The '(Compatibility tool)' note is valuable but underdeveloped.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this simulation tool requires substantial descriptive compensation. The description fails to explain the return behavior, error states, or the significance of 'additionalProperties: true' for specifying which action to simulate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to document either 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect'. While 'Input action' implies the additionalProperties likely contain the action name/data, the description provides no syntax guidance or examples for these undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic function (simulating Godot Input actions) but fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'simulate_key' or 'simulate_sequence'. It doesn't clarify that this targets Godot's mapped Input actions versus raw hardware input, leaving ambiguity for agent selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints this may not be the preferred approach, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'simulate_key' or what has replaced this tool. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not explain where input is directed (game vs editor), whether events persist between frames, what the timeoutMs parameter controls, or what autoConnect connects to. The safety profile and side effects are completely undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief at two fragments, the description is insufficiently informative given the complete lack of schema documentation. The '(Compatibility tool)' phrase consumes space without clarifying its meaning, and the front-loading prioritizes brevity over necessary context for a 2-parameter automation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent role in Godot automation (injecting keyboard events) and the presence of connection-oriented parameters, the description lacks critical context: key format expectations, target window/editor state requirements, and interaction with the engine's input queue. No output schema exists to compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters, the description completely fails to compensate. It does not explain that timeoutMs likely controls connection timeout (default 5000ms) or that autoConnect likely handles automatic server connection, leaving critical parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a clear verb ('Simulate') and resource ('keyboard input'), establishing the basic function. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling 'simulate_action' or 'simulate_sequence', leaving ambiguity about whether to use key codes, scan codes, or input action names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' cryptically implies this may be legacy or secondary to other methods, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus 'simulate_action' or what 'compatibility' refers to. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are documented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but offers almost nothing. Fails to explain what happens to game state/nodes during stop, whether the operation is graceful or forceful, or what conditions might cause failure. No mention of return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (5 words), which is efficient but to a fault. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' wastes space without clarifying compatibility with what, or why it matters. Front-loaded but uninformative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and a significant side-effect operation (terminating a running scene), the description is inadequate. It does not prepare the agent to use the tool safely or understand its parameter implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (timeoutMs and autoConnect are undocumented). The description completely fails to compensate—it mentions neither parameter nor their semantics. 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' are cryptic without explanation (timeout for what? connect to what?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (stop) and target (running scene) clearly. Distinguishes from sibling 'play_scene' implicitly. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is vague and unexplained, leaving ambiguity about why/when to prefer this over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., scene must be actively running), or side effects. No mention of the relationship to 'play_scene' or scene lifecycle management.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but fails to explain the destructive nature (irreversibility, layer scope), the purpose of the timeoutMs/autoConnect parameters visible in the schema, or what 'compatibility' implies for behavior differences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While not wasteful, the description is undersized for the information deficit it must cover. Given the lack of annotations, zero schema coverage, and destructive operation type, additional sentences explaining parameters and safety considerations were necessary rather than omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a destructive operation with undocumented parameters and no output schema. Missing: parameter documentation, return value description, safety warnings about data loss, and explanation of the compatibility qualifier.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no compensation for the two undocumented parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect). The agent receives no information about what connection timeout or auto-connection refers to in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Clear all tilemap cells') with specific scope (all cells vs. individual operations), distinguishing it from siblings like tilemap_set_cell or tilemap_fill_rect. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical lacks explanation, leaving ambiguity about whether this targets legacy systems or specific engine versions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives like tilemap_fill_rect or manual cell deletion. The 'Compatibility tool' label suggests specific use cases but offers no elaboration on prerequisites, deprecation status, or migration paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but omits critical behavioral details: whether validation results are returned or thrown as errors, what 'autoConnect' connects to, the purpose of 'timeoutMs', and what constitutes a validation failure versus success.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (4 words), but this brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficiency. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without providing actionable context. Front-loaded structure is good, but content is insufficient for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Incomplete given zero schema annotations, 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and ambiguous 'compatibility' designation. For a validation tool, the description should indicate return format (boolean/error list) and whether it performs side effects, but provides none of this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' are undocumented—description fails to explain what timeout applies to (validation duration?) or what connection 'autoConnect' establishes, nor does it mention 'additionalProperties: true' flexibility.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Validate') and target ('script syntax'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'execute_script' or 'create_script'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify scope versus alternatives like 'edit_script'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'edit_script' or 'read_script'. The '(Compatibility tool)' notation hints at specific context but fails to explain what compatibility concerns warrant using this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only offers the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' hint regarding behavior. It omits critical mutation details such as whether assignment overwrites existing materials, error handling if the node is invalid, or the implications of `additionalProperties: true` in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse with zero filler words, consisting of a single functional sentence and a parenthetical qualifier. While efficient, it is arguably too brief given the complete absence of schema documentation, though the sentences themselves are well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to invoke confidently. It covers the high-level purpose but omits parameter semantics, side effects, and the specific meaning of 'Compatibility tool,' which are necessary for correct usage when no structured metadata exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description completely fails to compensate by explaining the two parameters (`timeoutMs` and `autoConnect`). The agent has no semantic guidance on what 'autoConnect' refers to (shader graph connections? material-to-node linkage?) or typical timeout scenarios, leaving the parameters effectively undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action (Assign) and specific resource type (ShaderMaterial) to a target (node), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `set_material_3d` or `set_shader_param` which handle generic materials or parameter updates. However, it lacks explanation of the '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier, leaving ambiguity about its specific scope versus modern alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical implies legacy usage but fails to explicitly state when to use this tool versus `set_material_3d` or other material-related siblings. No guidance is provided on prerequisites (e.g., node existence, material readiness) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to explain what 'autoConnect' or 'timeoutMs' mean in the context of clearing output, whether the clearing is permanent, or what happens on failure. The 'Compatibility tool' label suggests special behavior but offers no explanation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at two short sentences. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, this brevity represents under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain the relationship between clearing output and the connection/timeout parameters, leaving critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides zero compensation. Parameters 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' have no semantic explanation—unclear why clearing output requires a timeout or connection logic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the specific action (Clear) and target (output panel) clearly. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is vague but the core purpose is discernible. Distinguishes from siblings like get_output_log or get_editor_errors by focusing on clearing/clearing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides only a cryptic hint with '(Compatibility tool)' but does not explain when to use this versus alternatives, what compatibility it refers to, or prerequisites for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It hints at destructive vs. overwrite behaviors via 'replace/full content' but fails to disclose side effects, error handling, what 'Compatibility tool' implies for behavior, or persistence guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (one sentence + parenthetical), but the '(Compatibility tool)' annotation is opaque—unclear if this signals deprecation, legacy support, or specific behavior. Information-to-word ratio is mediocre due to this unexplained qualifier.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a script-editing tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema. Missing critical details: how to specify the target script, content format, encoding, or return value structure. The additionalProperties pattern (common in Godot MCP tools) is not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and accepts additionalProperties (likely for script content), yet the description fails to document timeoutMs/autoConnect or explain how to pass content parameters. The 'replace or full content' phrase hints at payload semantics but lacks concrete parameter mapping.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the tool edits scripts and specifies two distinct modes (replace vs full content), distinguishing it from siblings like create_script, read_script, and validate_script. However, it doesn't explain what 'Compatibility tool' means, slightly diluting clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions 'replace or full content' implying two usage modes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. create_script, when to choose replace over full content, or prerequisites like script existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. While 'runtime nodes' indicates this operates on the live game instance rather than the editor, the description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the meaning of 'Compatibility tool.' No side effects or performance characteristics are documented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (nine words), but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without adding actionable information. The core purpose is front-loaded, though the unexplained tag creates ambiguity without expanding understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema parameter descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex Godot automation context, the description is inadequate. It omits expected return structure, does not clarify what constitutes a 'runtime' context versus editor context, and leaves the 'Compatibility' warning unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the two defined parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), and the description adds no details about them. However, the phrase 'by script' provides semantic context for the additionalProperties: true field, implying the tool expects script identifiers as input, though this remains implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds 'runtime nodes by script,' specifying the action (Find), resource (runtime nodes), and filter criteria (by script). It distinguishes from siblings like find_nodes_by_type or find_nodes_in_group. However, the cryptic parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is unexplained, slightly diminishing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like find_script_references or find_nodes_by_type. It does not explain what 'Compatibility tool' implies (e.g., deprecation, legacy support) or prerequisites for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain what triggers the timeout, whether errors are cleared after retrieval, what 'Compatibility tool' implies for behavior, or the return format. The presence of autoConnect suggests connection behavior that isn't explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, this brevity results in underspecification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool interacting with a live editor process. With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the parameters, return structure, and the 'compatibility' qualification, but provides none of these.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the parameters. The agent cannot determine what timeoutMs is waiting for (error occurrence? connection?) or what autoConnect connects to, leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'editor errors and stack traces' with a specific verb and resource. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is opaque and the description doesn't differentiate from sibling diagnostic tools like get_output_log or get_test_report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_output_log or get_test_report. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at legacy usage but doesn't specify when this should be preferred or avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Compatibility tool' likely refers to Godot's Compatibility rendering backend but is unexplained. No disclosure of output format (file path, base64, bytes), blocking behavior, or side effects on the running game.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at two fragments with main purpose front-loaded. However, '(Compatibility tool)' is cryptic and reads as insufficiently informative rather than purposefully concise—it suggests important behavioral context but fails to elaborate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema. Missing explanation of return value format (critical for a screenshot tool), parameter effects on connection behavior, and what constitutes a 'running game' state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage for 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'. The description adds no semantics for these parameters, leaving critical configuration options (connection timeout duration, auto-connection to game instance) completely undocumented despite having no schema descriptions to fall back on.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('running game screenshot'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tool 'get_editor_screenshot' by specifying 'running game'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is vague but doesn't obscure the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance, comparison to alternatives (e.g., 'get_editor_screenshot', 'capture_frames'), or prerequisites (e.g., game must be running). The '(Compatibility tool)' tag hints at specific rendering backend context but lacks explanation of when this matters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving metadata and autoloads but does not explain what format the data returns in, whether this requires an active editor connection, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies regarding deprecation or legacy support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two brief statements. While efficiently structured, this brevity contributes to the information gaps elsewhere, particularly regarding parameter documentation and behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema parameter coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to document the parameters, explain the return structure, or clarify the 'compatibility' aspect, leaving critical gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters (`timeoutMs` and `autoConnect`), and the description adds no compensatory information about these parameters, their interaction, or valid usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'project metadata and autoload information,' specifying both the action (Get) and resources. However, it fails to clarify how this differs from siblings like `get_project_settings` or `get_autoload`, and the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the numerous siblings that overlap in scope (e.g., `get_autoload`, `get_project_settings`). The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at specific use cases but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'raw' hints at output format, it fails to state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or what specific output structure to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient with zero fluff; every word conveys meaning. However, the brevity is inappropriate given the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for the complexity: two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to compensate by explaining parameters, return values, or the compatibility context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'. The description completely omits these parameters, offering no semantic context for what timeout or auto-connection refers to in this Godot context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Read) and target resource (raw .tscn content). The '(Compatibility tool)' tag suggests a specialized niche distinct from generic resource readers, though the distinction is not fully explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'read_resource' or 'get_scene_tree', nor does it explain what 'Compatibility tool' implies for usage scenarios or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only minimally indicates the tool works in both editor and runtime contexts but fails to explain connection behavior, timeout handling, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies regarding side effects or deprecation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (9 words) and front-loaded with the core action. While efficient in word count, this conciseness crosses into underspecification given the lack of supporting documentation elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is insufficient for the complexity of scene hierarchy retrieval. It omits return value structure, parameter semantics, and behavioral constraints necessary for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect). The description completely fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control, their units, or behavioral impact, leaving the agent blind to critical configuration options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('scene hierarchy') and notes the context ('from editor/runtime'). However, it fails to explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_game_scene_tree', leaving ambiguity about which tool to use when.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'get_game_scene_tree' or 'get_filesystem_tree'. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is too vague to inform usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but reveals almost nothing about behavioral traits. It does not explain the mysterious 'Compatibility tool' designation (read-only? deprecated?), return value structure, or side effects. The presence of connection-related parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) suggests network/IPC behavior that is completely undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two fragments) with no redundant or wasted language. However, given the severe lack of schema documentation and the unclear nature of the parameters, this brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and the presence of non-obvious technical parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect), the description is materially incomplete. The 'Compatibility tool' tag raises questions about tool lifecycle and alternatives that remain unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate, yet it mentions neither the 'timeoutMs' nor 'autoConnect' parameters. These parameter names suggest connection/execution management rather than shader domain logic (e.g., material_path, param_names), and their semantics remain entirely opaque without description support.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Get shader params') and target resource ('material'), providing a specific verb-resource pairing. However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'read_shader' (which likely retrieves shader code) or 'set_shader_param' (the mutator counterpart), leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves parameter definitions or runtime values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' suggests a specific usage context (legacy/deprecated), but provides no actionable guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or what compatibility constraints apply. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided regarding the numerous sibling shader/material tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It does not explain return format, whether this queries the editor or a running game instance, or what the 'compatibility' designation means operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag is terse and potentially vague, but the text contains no redundant sentences or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions or explain the compatibility context, leaving significant gaps in the agent's understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning for 'timeoutMs' or 'autoConnect'. The agent has no guidance on what connection timeout refers to or what auto-connecting entails, leaving critical parameters effectively undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('animations in AnimationPlayer'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_animation_info' (which likely retrieves detailed data for a single animation vs. enumerating all).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at special usage constraints but fails to explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what 'compatibility' implies for the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only provides the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' hint without explaining side effects, return format, or why this is considered a compatibility tool. No mention of what the presets contain or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two fragments. No wasted words, though the brevity contributes to underspecification. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero annotations, zero schema parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. A list operation with two undocumented control parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) and unknown return structure requires significantly more detail to be usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters. The description completely fails to compensate by explaining these parameters, their valid ranges, or their behavioral impact (e.g., what happens when autoConnect is false).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'List export presets' with a specific verb and resource. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical adds some distinction from siblings like get_export_info and export_project, though it doesn't fully explain what 'compatibility' means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_export_info or export_project. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at specific use cases but doesn't specify when to prefer modern alternatives or avoid this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '(Compatibility tool)' without explaining what compatibility constraints or behaviors this implies, and fails to describe side effects, state changes, or the significance of the 'autoConnect' parameter implied by the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two short sentences). While efficient in word count, the '(Compatibility tool)' fragment consumes space without adding commensurate value. Nevertheless, it avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that interacts with the editor state, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter documentation, return value description, and explanation of the 'compatibility' designation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' parameters. The description completely fails to compensate for this gap by explaining what these parameters control, their units, or their operational impact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (Open) and resource (scene) with context (in editor), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_scene' or 'play_scene'. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is opaque and unexplained, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'create_scene', 'save_scene', or 'play_scene'. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the 'Compatibility tool' classification but fails to disclose whether this performs a filesystem lookup, requires an open project, returns a string format, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (six words plus a parenthetical). While efficient, it is underspecified given the lack of schema documentation and output schema, failing to front-load critical usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should compensate with return type information, parameter details, and error conditions. It provides none of these, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description mentions a conceptual input (res:// path) that does not appear in the schema properties (timeoutMs, autoConnect). While it hints at the domain input via additionalProperties, it offers no explanation for the defined timeoutMs or autoConnect parameters, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the conversion operation (res:// path to UID) and identifies it as a 'Compatibility tool', which provides domain context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'uid_to_project_path' despite the directional relationship being implicit in the names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites for invocation. The '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests legacy use cases but does not specify when this conversion is necessary versus working with native paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly identifies the 'runtime' context but fails to explain the critical 'additionalProperties: true' schema behavior—specifically that arbitrary property key-values are accepted alongside the defined timeoutMs/autoConnect parameters. The 'compatibility' claim is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two fragments), which is efficient but insufficient given the tool's complexity (arbitrary property setting). The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' wastes space without adding clarifying value. Core information is front-loaded but underdeveloped.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich Godot ecosystem context (evident from siblings like 'godot_connect' and 'get_game_scene_tree'), the description fails to mention Godot or clarify how this tool differs from the 5+ other property-setting siblings. The lack of output schema and the presence of additionalProperties demands more explanation than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'multiple' implies arbitrary property acceptance (aligning with additionalProperties), the description completely omits what 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect' control, nor does it explain the expected format or naming of the node properties being set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('runtime node properties'), distinguishing it from the singular sibling 'set_game_node_property' by specifying 'multiple'. The 'runtime' qualifier adds important context. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance. The '(Compatibility tool)' hint suggests legacy usage but fails to explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_game_node_property', 'batch_set_property', or 'cross_scene_set_property'. No constraints or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates this is a 'Compatibility tool' without explaining side effects, persistence, required permissions, or what happens to unspecified material properties.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured and front-loaded, with zero redundant text. However, given the complexity of the additionalProperties pattern and connection parameters, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool manipulating 3D materials with an additionalProperties pattern and connection-specific parameters, the description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of valid property values, the timeout behavior, or return values (though no output schema exists).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'properties' but fails to explain that material properties are passed via additionalProperties, or what the visible parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) mean in this context. It does not compensate for the undocumented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets 'StandardMaterial3D properties' using a specific verb and resource type. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'assign_shader_material' or 'set_particle_material' that also handle materials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at a specific use case but does not explain what compatibility scenario warrants its use or when to prefer other material-setting tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Configure' implies mutation but doesn't disclose side effects, idempotency, or what happens to existing material properties. 'Compatibility tool' hints at behavioral context but fails to explain the implications (e.g., rendering mode restrictions).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with zero redundancy. Two short clauses front-load the core purpose. However, brevity crosses into under-specification given the lack of structured metadata.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a configuration tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations. Fails to explain parameter purposes, acceptable values for additionalProperties, return behavior, or the specific 'Compatibility' context. Sibling tools suggest a rich API where this tool's specific role needs clearer delineation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and includes 'additionalProperties: true', indicating arbitrary material properties are accepted. Description completely fails to document the two defined parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) or mention the flexible additionalProperties capability, leaving all parameter semantics undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Configure) and target resource (particle process material). The '(Compatibility tool)' tag hints at specialized scope, though it ambiguously could mean legacy API support or Compatibility rendering mode without clarifying which.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings like 'apply_particle_preset' or 'set_particle_color_gradient'. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical implies a constraint but doesn't specify prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether this operation is destructive to existing shapes, what the 'timeoutMs' parameter governs (operation timeout? connection timeout?), or what side effects occur. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at legacy behavior but doesn't explain what that entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, but the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' consumes space without adding actionable information. It achieves brevity at the cost of necessary specificity regarding the parameter schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool accepts arbitrary additional properties (additionalProperties: true) and lacks an output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to structure the collision shape data passed via additional properties, nor does it describe the return value or failure modes (e.g., timeout behavior).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the two defined parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect') or the critical 'additionalProperties: true' pattern, which implies arbitrary collision shape data must be passed via undeclared properties. The agent has no guidance on required inputs beyond the connection parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Add') and resource ('collision shapes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_collision_info' or 'setup_physics_body'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify what compatibility concerns exist or how this differs from standard collision setup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'setup_physics_body' or 'add_node'. It does not mention prerequisites, nor does it explain the 'compatibility' context that might indicate when this specific tool is preferred over newer methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The 'Compatibility tool' note suggests legacy/deprecated behavior but fails to disclose return format, read-only nature, or what specific metadata is retrieved. Critical gap given no output schema exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse at only 4 words plus a parenthetical. No wasted words or fluff, though brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail. Front-loaded structure with main verb first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Severely incomplete given zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. Description fails to explain what metadata is returned or how to interpret results, leaving agents without guidance on successful invocation outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for timeoutMs and autoConnect. Description adds zero information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the undocumented schema. No explanation of what the timeout controls or auto-connect behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tilemap metadata'), distinguishing scope from siblings like tilemap_get_cell (specific cells) and tilemap_get_used_cells (cell lists). The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' adds context but remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives like tilemap_get_cell or tilemap_get_used_cells. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at legacy usage but doesn't explain when this is preferred over other tilemap tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose mutation semantics (overwrite vs merge), error handling (out of bounds), or idempotency. The 'Compatibility tool' label suggests behavioral quirks but does not explain them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse (two fragments) with no wasted words. While efficient in structure, it suffers from under-specification rather than verbosity. The core action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of tilemap operations and the open schema, the description is inadequate. It omits critical domain concepts like coordinates, atlas positions, or tile sources needed to actually invoke the tool, providing only the barest operational hint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 'additionalProperties: true', the description must specify the expected cell parameters (coordinates, tile ID, layer). It mentions none of these, leaving the user to guess the required properties beyond the generic 'timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('Set') and resource ('single tile cell'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'tilemap_fill_rect' (batch) and 'tilemap_get_cell' (read). However, it lacks detail on what constitutes a 'cell' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides only the cryptic note '(Compatibility tool)' which hints at deprecation or legacy use but offers no actionable guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., batch tools) or what 'compatibility' refers to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to explain blocking vs. polling mechanics, return values, failure modes on timeout, or what 'Compatibility tool' implies for behavior. It only states the high-level intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (6 words plus a parenthetical) and front-loaded with the action. However, it approaches under-specification given the lack of schema documentation and annotations; the brevity leaves critical gaps rather than efficiently conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or the significance of the 'Compatibility' designation, leaving the agent with minimal context for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description fails to compensate by explaining the two parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect). While timeoutMs implies milliseconds, the description doesn't clarify the units, defaults, or what 'autoConnect' connects to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Wait') and resource ('node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_node, delete_node, or find_nodes_by_type. However, it lacks specificity about what 'appear' means (e.g., added to scene tree, becomes visible) and the cryptic '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier is unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like find_nodes_by_type or get_game_scene_tree. The '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical hints at specific usage constraints but is too vague to constitute actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates that children are duplicated, but omits critical details: where the duplicate appears in the scene tree, whether it shares resources with the original, what 'compatibility' limitations exist, and how naming conflicts are resolved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at only two sentences, achieving front-loading of the core action. However, the extreme brevity contributes to information gaps rather than efficient communication, particularly regarding the unexplained 'compatibility tool' designation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a node duplication operation with no output schema. Missing: return value description (the new node reference), placement behavior in the scene tree, handling of attached scripts/signals, and explanation of the compatibility aspect. The 0% parameter schema coverage is not addressed by the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate. It does not explain the `timeoutMs` or `autoConnect` parameters, nor does it clarify how to specify the source node identifier (likely expected via additionalProperties). The agent receives no guidance on required inputs despite the open-ended schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb (duplicate) and resource (node), explicitly noting that children are included in the operation. The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' adds contextual flavor but remains vague about specific compatibility constraints or deprecated status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like `add_node` or manual instantiation. The description fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., that a source node must exist) or when this compatibility tool should be preferred over native duplication methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The '(Compatibility tool)' note hints at legacy behavior but provides no specifics on performance, return format, or side effects. It fails to explain how the 'class type' filtering actually works with the given schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with the primary purpose front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' earns minimal value. No wordiness or redundancy is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and the cryptic input schema (additionalProperties with undefined semantics), the description should explain return values and parameter usage. It provides neither, leaving critical gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool or what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and additionalProperties: true. While the description implies that 'class type' is the search criterion (likely passed via additionalProperties), it completely fails to document the explicit parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) or explain the expected key/value format for the class type parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action (Find) and target (nodes by class type), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like find_nodes_by_script or find_nodes_in_group. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is vague and unexplained, slightly weakening clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like find_nodes_by_script or find_nodes_in_group. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or selection criteria for this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Inspect' suggests read-only behavior, the description fails to disclose what data structure is returned, the implications of 'autoConnect' and 'timeoutMs', or what makes this a 'compatibility' tool versus standard inspection methods.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (effectively two fragments) and front-loaded with the core action. While efficiently worded, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification given the lack of supporting metadata elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous animation-related sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify the output format, the specific structure being inspected (nodes? states? transitions?), or how it differs from 'get_animation_info'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters ('timeoutMs' and 'autoConnect'), yet the description provides no compensatory explanation of their semantics, valid ranges, or usage contexts beyond what the schema property names and types already convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('AnimationTree structure'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_animation_tree' or 'set_tree_parameter'. However, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is cryptic and detracts slightly from clarity without explanation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' note hints at a specific use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_animation_info' or 'get_game_scene_tree', nor does it explain what 'compatibility' implies (deprecated? legacy format?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only discloses that the operation is recursive. It fails to explain what 'Compatibility tool' implies for behavior, what the return structure looks like (file paths? tree nodes?), or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' adds opacity without sufficient context, and the second sentence could have been used to explain parameters given the lack of schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. A filesystem recursion tool requires explanation of return format, depth limits, filtering mechanisms, and the specific 'compatibility' behavior it provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While it mentions 'optional filters,' it does not explain how to use them (likely via additionalProperties), nor does it clarify the semantics of timeoutMs or autoConnect. The mismatch between 'filters' mentioned and the connection/timeout parameters in the schema creates confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Get recursive file tree') that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_scene_tree or get_game_scene_tree by specifying 'filesystem' and 'recursive'. However, the parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' is vague and doesn't clarify what compatibility means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_files or get_scene_tree. The 'Compatibility tool' label hints at specific use cases but fails to explain when this should be preferred or avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to deliver. It does not explain the connection behavior implied by 'autoConnect', the timeout implications, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return format contains. The 'compatibility tool' mention hints at behavior but remains cryptic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core action. The two fragments are information-dense with no filler words. However, it verges on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness given the lack of schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 0% schema coverage, absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description should elaborate on parameters, return values, and side effects. It provides none of these, leaving critical gaps in the agent's understanding of how to invoke the tool successfully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters (timeoutMs and autoConnect), and the description offers no compensating information about their semantics, valid ranges, or usage patterns. While the parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, the description fails to clarify the connection protocol or timeout behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('runtime scene hierarchy'), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_scene_tree' tool (implied by 'runtime' vs editor context). However, the '(Compatibility tool)' suffix is unexplained jargon that slightly obscures the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_scene_tree' or 'get_game_node_properties'. The '(Compatibility tool)' label implies a specific use case but fails to explain what compatibility scenario warrants its use over standard tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions WebSocket as the transport, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: connection persistence, failure modes (throws vs returns false), authentication requirements, or whether this establishes global state for subsequent tool calls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant or wasteful text. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, given the lack of annotations and schema documentation, it is arguably too terse rather than appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a foundational connection primitive with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical operational context such as error handling behavior, connection lifecycle management, and the fact that this likely must be called before other Godot tools can function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'timeoutMs' parameter. The description makes no mention of this parameter or its purpose (WebSocket connection timeout), failing to compensate for the undocumented schema. It neither explains the default value nor the minimum constraint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Connect') and resource ('running Godot bridge'), along with the protocol ('WebSocket'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'godot_disconnect' and 'godot_status' through the clear action verb, though it doesn't explicitly reference those relationships in the text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that Godot must be running) or the relationship to 'godot_disconnect'. It fails to indicate whether this should be called before other Godot tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what happens if the Camera3D node does not exist. The 'Compatibility tool' note is the only behavioral hint, but lacks explanation of its implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only two short statements. It is front-loaded with the primary action and the parenthetical compatibility note adds distinct context without verbosity. However, given the lack of schema documentation, it may be overly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a tool accepting arbitrary properties via `additionalProperties`. It fails to specify which Camera3D properties are supported, expected formats, or the return behavior, leaving critical gaps in contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'Set Camera3D properties' implies that arbitrary camera properties can be passed (aligning with `additionalProperties: true`), the description completely omits the purpose of the explicitly defined parameters `timeoutMs` and `autoConnect`, leaving their semantics undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Set') and resource ('Camera3D properties'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, while the '(Compatibility tool)' note hints at differentiation from siblings like `set_game_node_property`, it fails to explain exactly how this tool differs or what 'compatibility' implies in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as `set_game_node_property` or `batch_set_property`. The 'Compatibility tool' parenthetical implies a specific use case but does not clarify prerequisites, deprecation status, or when to avoid using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the 'Compatibility tool' behavioral context but fails to disclose error conditions, return value format, side effects, or whether this requires an active connection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at two brief clauses with zero redundant words. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and unexplained input mechanism, the description is insufficient. It should elaborate on how to provide the UID and what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description completely fails to explain the two parameters (timeoutMs, autoConnect) or clarify how the UID input is provided—critical given the schema defines no UID field and relies on additionalProperties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core function with specific verb and resource ('Convert UID to res:// project path'). The parenthetical '(Compatibility tool)' adds scope context. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'project_path_to_uid' via directionality, though it does not explicitly name the inverse tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' label implies a specific usage context (likely legacy or transition scenarios), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, prerequisites, or when NOT to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fails to mention that additionalProperties allows passing arbitrary script arguments, does not clarify if the script execution can modify editor state destructively, and omits what the timeoutMs/autoConnect parameters control.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only two sentences. While efficient, the '(Compatibility tool)' parenthetical is under-explained given the complexity of script execution, making the description feel incomplete rather than appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool accepts arbitrary additional properties (likely script arguments) and lacks annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the parameter passing mechanism, return behavior, or safety implications of running arbitrary GDScript in the editor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters and the critical additionalProperties behavior. It mentions none of these, leaving users unaware that arbitrary script arguments can be passed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action (Execute GDScript) and the specific context (editor context), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'execute_game_script'. The '(Compatibility tool)' qualifier provides additional classification, though its specific meaning is opaque.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'editor context' phrase implies usage for editor automation vs runtime, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'execute_game_script' or what 'Compatibility tool' signifies in terms of deprecation or specific use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a template (behavioral trait), but fails to mention side effects like file system mutation, overwrite behavior, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two fragments) and front-loaded with the action verb. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and the mutation nature of the tool, this brevity leaves critical gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file creation mutation tool with no output schema, undocumented parameters, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It lacks: parameter documentation, return value description, file path handling, and template specification details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both timeoutMs and autoConnect parameters, and the description adds no information about them despite the presence of additionalProperties: true which allows arbitrary shader configuration properties. The description mentions 'template' but doesn't clarify template selection parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a shader file from a template, distinguishing it from siblings like edit_shader, read_shader, and assign_shader_material. The '(Compatibility tool)' tag adds specificity about its intended use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(Compatibility tool)' label provides implicit guidance that this is for legacy or specific compatibility scenarios, but lacks explicit when-to-use advice or named alternatives like create_resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States the action but omits side effects: whether this stops running scenes, clears editor state, requires confirmation, or can be reversed by reconnecting. 'Disconnect' implies termination but lacks safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is appropriately brief for a zero-parameter tool. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly redundant with tool name but 'Godot bridge' adds specificity beyond 'godot_disconnect'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple disconnect tool but minimal. Given lack of annotations and output schema, description should mention whether this affects running game instances or editor state. Minimum viable coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters. According to scoring rules, 0 params = baseline 4. No parameter information needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Disconnect') + resource ('Godot bridge') clearly stated. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'godot_connect' by describing the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use versus staying connected, or prerequisites (e.g., whether godot_connect must be called first). No mention of cleanup requirements before disconnection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. While 'low-level escape hatch' hints at flexibility and potential lack of guardrails, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this blocks on execution, what the return format is, error handling semantics, or whether autoConnect establishes a persistent connection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two highly efficient sentences. The first establishes functionality; the second establishes usage context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on valid command strings, expected return values, or error conditions necessary for an agent to invoke this low-level tool correctly without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all four parameters. While 'custom command' loosely maps to the command parameter, it fails to explain the payload structure, timeoutMs behavior, or autoConnect functionality. No examples or valid command formats are provided for the complex nested payload object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Send a custom command') and target ('Godot bridge'). The phrase 'low-level escape hatch' effectively distinguishes this tool from the 80+ named siblings (add_node, get_scene_tree, etc.) by positioning it as the generic fallback option.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('when a named tool is not enough'), implicitly directing users toward the specific sibling tools first. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' exclusions or named alternatives that would make the guidance bulletproof.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies this as a read operation returning status data, but fails to disclose what format the status takes (boolean, string enum, object) or specific error conditions when disconnected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Return', immediately communicating the tool's read-only nature. Zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it could improve by indicating whether the status includes connection state, error messages, or bridge version information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters. Per guidelines, zero parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed for this status check.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Return' with clear resource 'current connection status' and scope 'to the Godot bridge'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'godot_connect' and 'godot_disconnect' by clarifying this is a read-only status check rather than a connection management action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the name and description imply this checks the bridge health, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this (e.g., 'use before other operations' or 'call when connection errors occur') versus alternatives. Usage is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Godot-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Farraskuy/Godot-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Farraskuy/Godot-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Godot-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Farraskuy/Godot-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Farraskuy/Godot-MCP)

How to claim the server?

If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.

However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.

{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

Then, authenticate using GitHub.

Browse examples.

How to make a release?

A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:

Claim the server if you haven't already.
Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.

This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.

How to add a LICENSE?

Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.

Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Latest Blog Posts

Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security
Open Source Has a Bot Problem
By punkpeye on March 19, 2026.
open source

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Farraskuy/Godot-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server