Godot Script Symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say whether extraction respects comments/strings, whether it handles GDScript syntax edge cases, how symbols are returned (flat list vs grouped), or whether the operation is read-only. For a pure analysis tool this is a modest but real gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence that communicates the core operation and result. No wasted words. Could arguably list what's extracted more clearly, but as-is it's appropriately snappy.

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 0% schema coverage, the description should carry more weight. The tool is simple (single param, extraction task), but the return format is unknown and there's no behavioral detail. For a moderately simple extraction tool it's adequate, though more detail on return shape would help.

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 0%, with a single 'path' parameter that has no description. The description implies path refers to the script file, which is reasonable, but nothing in the description adds format/type detail beyond the obvious file path meaning. With only 1 param and no schema documentation, the description adds minimal but sufficient context.

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 (Extract) and resource (script) and enumerates what's extracted: class, function, signal, and variable names. It's clear among siblings like godot_script_read and godot_script_todo_index. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish why a user would pick this over godot_script_read for symbol inspection.

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?

The use case is implied: when you need symbol names from a script rather than full source. But there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no contrast with siblings like godot_script_list or godot_script_read. Adequate but not explicit.

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