Godot Runtime Tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches a live runtime tree but doesn't disclose whether the runtime must be running, what happens if it isn't (error behavior), performance implications of serializing a large tree, or whether the returned tree is a full snapshot. The word 'live' implies real-time but offers no detail on freshness or latency.

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, efficient sentence that perfectly front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 (zero params, no output schema), so a minimal description may suffice for core behavior. However, the absence of any guidance on runtime-state prerequisites, error conditions when no game is running, or what the returned tree structure looks like leaves meaningful gaps for an agent that needs to know whether to call this first vs. checking godot_runtime_status before attempting a fetch.

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 accepts zero parameters, which makes parameter semantics largely moot. Schema coverage is 100% with no parameters to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless fetch tool since there is nothing for a description to add about inputs.

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 'Fetch the live runtime scene tree through the bridge' clearly identifies the verb (fetch) and resource (live runtime scene tree), establishing it as a read operation on the running game's scene hierarchy. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like godot_scene_get_tree or godot_project_tree, which could overlap in purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies a runtime context ('live runtime') but doesn't clarify when godot_runtime_tree should be preferred over godot_scene_get_tree, godot_project_tree, or scene_get_node. No usage exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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