Godot MCP Bridge

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.