RQL / Schema

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint/idempotent/closed-world, and the description goes beyond them by describing what content comes back per mode, including node class counts and the 'ro = read-only' member flag plus the props["name"] convention. It does not discuss output size, truncation, or cost of introspecting a large scene, which would be a fuller disclosure.

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 paragraph is dense and front-loaded, leading with the acronym and its reference link before the mode breakdown, and every clause maps to a distinct behavior. The parenthetical reference URL and a couple of nested asides make it slightly heavier than necessary, but there is no filler.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so for each mode including the shape of member listings (name type; ro markers; props["name"]). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description substantially enriches the single `type` parameter by explaining the three semantic branches (omitted, extension name, type name) and giving concrete example values. That is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 states precisely what the tool returns and enumerates three distinct modes keyed by the optional `type` argument: no type gives sources/functions/extensions/scene node classes plus Node members, an extension name gives that extension's guide, and a type name gives members, methods, and Godot properties. This is far more specific than the title 'RQL / Schema' and distinguishes it from siblings like rql-query and rql-mutate.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance in 'Use it before querying an unfamiliar class,' which tells the agent to call this as a discovery step ahead of querying. It does not name a concrete alternative (e.g. rql-query) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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