Parse resource

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with (parse operation). The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing what each file type yields (node tree vs. outline), enhancing transparency.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and resource types. No redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main output types and example formats. It lacks mention of default response_format but is otherwise sufficient. The no-output-schema constraint is handled by describing output structure in text.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (parse), the target resource types, and the output structure (node tree, outline). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'structured JSON-ish output' and covers .tscn, .tres, .gd, .cs files.

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 implies usage for inspection and understanding resource structure, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_file' or 'game_*' tools. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.