Godot Scene Get Node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not describe what happens if the path or nodePath is invalid, whether this is a read-only operation, what the return value looks like, or whether the .tscn file needs to be loaded/parsed first. Being a read operation, it likely has no side effects, but the description never states this explicitly.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the verb and clear subject. However, it could arguably be considered under-specified rather than concise, given the missing parameter semantics and behavioral details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description carries nearly the full burden of communicating tool behavior. For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, the description provides minimal guidance beyond the core purpose. It doesn't explain return format, error behavior, path conventions, or how this relates to other scene tools—leaving an agent guessing on crucial invocation details.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the schema properties have no descriptions or types beyond being strings. The description names the two parameters implicitly (path, nodePath) in its phrasing but adds no additional meaning—it doesn't explain what 'path' refers to (filesystem path to .tscn vs node path) or clarify the distinction between the two string parameters. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get a scene node by its path from a .tscn file.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and the resource type (.tscn file). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling godot_scene_get_tree or godot_scene_set_node_property, though the purpose is fairly self-evident given the tool name and description.

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 like godot_scene_get_tree (which retrieves the whole tree) or godot_scene_set_node_property (which modifies a node). The description gives no context about when a single-node lookup is preferable to retrieving the full tree or about path format conventions (e.g., relative vs absolute node paths).

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