Godot Scene Get Tree

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 disclosing behavior. It states it parses and returns a node tree but doesn't mention what happens on invalid/malformed .tscn files, whether it touches the running project, whether the file must exist, or response/error format. For a parsing tool that could fail on malformed input, minimal failure behavior disclosure exists.

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, concise declarative sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose clearly. For a simple one-parameter tool this brevity is appropriate, though it omits important 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?

The tool is fairly simple (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), but the parameter semantics gap (what 'path' means) and lack of failure behavior disclosure leave meaningful gaps. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate, and it doesn't address path format or error handling.

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 there is only one parameter ('path'). The description doesn't specify whether 'path' is relative to the project root, an absolute filesystem path, or a resource path (e.g., res://). This is critical ambiguity for a filesystem-adjacent tool and the description fails to clarify it.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Parse a .tscn file') and clearly states output ('return its node tree'). It distinguishes reasonably from sibling tools like godot_scene_list (which likely lists scenes) and godot_runtime_tree (runtime tree), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't clarify how this differs from godot_scene_get_node, godot_scene_list, or godot_runtime_tree, nor whether it applies to static .tscn files on disk vs. loaded scenes. For a tool with many scene-related siblings, this is a notable gap.

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