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 but only covers basic creation behavior. It doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions (e.g., write access), whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or output format. The mention of 'custom content' hints at flexibility but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific usage details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (creation), the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and basic how but lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., side effects, error cases) and return values, leaving gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by explaining the 'template' param with examples ('CharacterBody2D', etc.) and clarifying it can accept 'custom content', but doesn't elaborate on 'projectPath' or 'scriptPath' beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Create a new GDScript file' with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('GDScript file'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_scene' (different resource) and 'modify_script' (different action), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'add_script_function' or 'set_scene_script'.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning the 'template param' with examples, suggesting when to use specific templates. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'modify_script' for editing or 'add_script_function' for incremental changes).

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