godot-mcp-pilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the action is an insertion, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies files in-place, requires write permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid paths or duplicate signals), or returns any confirmation. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and insertion rule efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe usage. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for invoking this tool is insufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of signal syntax or usage context). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a signal declaration') and target resource ('to a GDScript file'), with specific positioning ('Inserted after existing signals'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_variable' or 'add_script_function' by focusing on signals, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'modify_script' or 'create_script'. The description implies usage for adding signals, but offers no contextual advice for selection among siblings.

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