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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.