get_node_insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool runs headless without requiring a running game, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait. It does not mention edge cases or failure modes, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word earns its place. It efficiently communicates scope, parameter type, and execution mode without any fluff.

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 moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the analysis capabilities (methods, signals, dependencies, exports) and the headless execution context. It does not detail the return format, but the listed items provide a clear expectation of what insights are returned.

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?

The input schema is fully described (100% coverage), providing clear definitions for scriptPath and projectPath. The description adds extra semantic clarity by explicitly warning 'Takes a scriptPath, not a nodePath,' which prevents a common mistake and enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Analyze a GDScript file' with concrete actions (classify methods, identify signals, map dependencies, list exports). It also explicitly distinguishes from node-based tools by stating 'Takes a scriptPath, not a nodePath,' which clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_node_properties or get_scene_insights.

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 usage context by noting that it operates on a script path, not a node path, and runs headless (no game needed). This helps the agent understand when to use it (static analysis) versus launching a game. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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