Диагностика GDScript (LSP)

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which is unusual for a diagnostics tool; the description earns credit by disclosing the mechanism behind that (didOpen is queued against the editor) plus the up-to-ten-second first-call headless startup cost. It stops short of stating what state the queued didOpen alters or whether it persists, so not a 5.

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?

A single dense paragraph, but information-dense with no filler; the mode list is front-loaded after the identity sentence. A bulleted mode list would scan better, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For an 8-parameter, multi-mode tool with no output schema and no required fields, the description covers modes and coordinate conventions well but omits what each mode returns, how limit/include_declaration behave, and how dir scanning relates to paths. An agent can invoke it but will have to discover some semantics by trial.

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 only 38%, so the description does real work: it explains what each mode= value means, that path is mandatory except for mode=status, and that line/character are 1-based. It leaves limit, include_declaration, and the relationship between dir and paths undocumented, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 names a specific resource (Godot's built-in GDScript LSP) and enumerates all seven modes with what each returns, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like godot_script_check or godot_class, which is why it falls short of a 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?

Per-mode behavior is described (diagnostics needs an existing file, status needs no path), and it notes the headless-editor fallback when the editor is closed. But it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling godot_script_check or godot_script diagnostics paths, so routing remains implicit.

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