Godot Runtime Performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read-only fetch operation (implied by 'fetch'), but it doesn't describe whether the tool requires a running project, what happens if the bridge is down, what specific metrics are included, or the format of the returned stats. Without annotations, more behavioral detail is needed.

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?

Single concise sentence, no wasted words. It's appropriately brief though slightly terse - one could argue it omits useful detail that would make it longer but more helpful.

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 tool is simple (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is very thin. For a performance stats tool, the agent would benefit from knowing what metrics are available (e.g., FPS, frame time, memory, draw calls) and any runtime requirements. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description to explain what data comes back, which it doesn't.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies since there's nothing the description needs to compensate for.

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 'Fetch runtime performance stats from the bridge' which identifies the action (fetch), resource (runtime performance stats), and source (bridge). It's clear enough but generic; it doesn't specify what specific performance metrics are returned (FPS, memory, CPU, etc.), which would help distinguish detailed performance data from the runtime status tool that also reports runtime state.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. There's no distinction between when to use this tool versus godot_runtime_status or godot_runtime_logs, which are sibling tools in the same runtime category. The description doesn't state whether this is for ongoing monitoring, debugging performance issues, or something else.

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