Engine API (live)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: unknown Godot 3 names return suggestions rather than failing, and results reflect a currently running engine. It does not describe output shape or error behavior for invalid actions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the action list following as compact reference material. Each line earns its place; the only mild excess is the parenthetical 'no guessing', which is rhetorical rather than informational.

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 a single dispatcher tool wrapping five distinct operations across eight parameters with no output schema, the per-action parameter documentation is largely complete and covers the fallback-suggestion behavior. The remaining gap is return-value shape, which with no output schema the agent must infer.

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, but the description goes further by mapping which parameters belong to which action (sections for class, query/base for search, domain for node_types, child/parent for check_parent) and by enumerating the valid sections and domain values. That mapping is genuine value the flat schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — interrogating the running engine for its exact API — and the phrase 'no guessing' plus 'running engine' distinguishes it from the offline 'docs' sibling. An agent can tell this is live introspection rather than static documentation lookup without opening the schema.

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 action breakdown effectively explains which operation to pick for which question (class members, class search, member declaration lookup, node types, parent/child validation), which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of any when-not guidance or explicit differentiation from the 'docs' sibling for offline cases.

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