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 describes the parsing action and output format, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid paths or malformed scripts), performance considerations, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, action, and output without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids redundancy, making it highly concise 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 complexity (parsing and metadata extraction), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the output format but omits behavioral aspects like error handling or performance. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but could better address gaps from missing structured data.

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 does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Parse a GDScript file') and the resource ('functions, signals, and top-level variables'), with detailed output elements (names, parameters, return types, line numbers). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_script' or 'read_script' by focusing on structural extraction rather than general analysis or raw content reading.

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 implies usage for extracting structured metadata from GDScript files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_script' (which might provide different insights) or 'read_script' (which returns raw content). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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