godot-mcp-pilot

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'finds common errors and Godot 4 migration issues,' which implies a read-only, diagnostic operation, but doesn't specify output format, error types, or limitations (e.g., whether it requires Godot 4). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about expected behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (static analysis with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on output, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. This leaves gaps for the agent to infer behavior, making it incomplete for confident use.

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%, with both parameters ('projectPath' and 'scriptPath') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Perform basic static analysis on a GDScript file — finds common errors and Godot 4 migration issues.' It specifies the action ('static analysis'), resource type ('GDScript file'), and scope ('common errors and Godot 4 migration issues'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_script' or 'read_script', which prevents a score of 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the script must exist), compare to siblings like 'modify_script' for editing or 'run_gdscript' for execution, or specify scenarios where analysis is appropriate. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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