Godot Script Manager

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

The destructiveHint annotation is present, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not clarify that write and edit actions are destructive while list, read, and check are safe. With annotations already indicating destructiveness, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral details beyond what is already structured.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is good for brevity, but it omits the 'edit' action and lacks structure. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (e.g., the action enum is essential but not highlighted). The sentence is clear but marginal for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 complexity (8 parameters, action enum, output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain that the action parameter is required, how different actions map to other parameters, or the role of projectPath. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it. The context feels incomplete for effective agent use.

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 provides a high-level overview but does not add meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions. It does not link actions to specific required parameters or explain the interplay between parameters.

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 handles reading, writing, listing, and syntax-checking of GDScript/C# files. It is specific about the resource type (scripts) and actions, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like godot_scene or godot_asset. However, it omits the 'edit' action present in the schema, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_editor or godot_batch. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when to avoid using it. The description merely lists actions without providing decision-making context.

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