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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the scene overwrites existing files, error handling for invalid paths or node types, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly while avoiding under-specification or redundancy.

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 complexity (creating a file with parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like file overwriting, error cases, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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 fully documents all three parameters (projectPath, scenePath, rootNodeType). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying rootNodeType is customizable, which the schema already covers with its description and default value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a new .tscn scene file') and the resource involved ('with a specified root node type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_script' or 'instantiate_scene' which handle different resource types. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 like 'instantiate_scene' (for creating instances) or 'create_script' (for code files). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing project, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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