Godot MCP Bridge

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.