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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.