godot-mcp-pilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool modifies scene files ('.tscn') by adding ext_resource entries, indicating mutation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses advanced traits like rate limits or reversibility.

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 and adds a useful detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying functionality and file impact, with zero waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a mutation tool. It covers the basic action and file modification but lacks details on return values, error cases, or prerequisites. For a tool with 4 parameters and mutation behavior, it should ideally include more about outcomes or constraints.

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 well. The description adds minimal value by implying 'scriptPath' is optional for detachment, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Attach a GDScript to a node in a scene, or detach the current script') and the resource involved ('node in a scene'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_script_function' or 'modify_script'. It explicitly mentions the dual functionality of attaching or detaching scripts, which is precise and actionable.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to attach or detach scripts in Godot scenes) and implies usage by mentioning the automatic addition of ext_resource entries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'modify_script' for script editing, leaving some guidance gaps.

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