manage_scene_signals

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

The description discloses that the tool lists, adds, or removes signal connections, which implies both read and destructive actions. However, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility of removals, or whether additions require existing signals. Since no annotations provide readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries the burden but only gives minimal 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage notes without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is overly minimal. It does not explain what the 'list' action returns, error conditions, or how the actions affect the signal connections. More detail is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the actions listed in the schema. It does not explain how parameters like sourcePath, signalName, targetPath, and method relate to specific actions, which would help an agent know which parameters are required for each action.

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 tool's purpose: managing signal connections in .tscn files. It specifies the three actions (list, add, remove) and the file type, effectively differentiating it from runtime signal tools like game_connect_signal and broader scene editing tools like manage_scene_structure.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it operates on static scene files while game_* tools operate at runtime, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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