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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.