godot_describe

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by specifying what is returned: types, required/optional status, defaults, and annotations. This clarifies the tool's output scope without contradicting the safety hints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then packs the relevant detail about output contents and batch support.

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 simple introspection tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and what input it expects. It does not explain the exact response structure, but the phrase 'full parameter schema' with enumerated components is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive methods field, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that the method names are 'godot_call methods' and that the result is a full parameter schema. This helps an agent understand what to pass and what to expect, going slightly beyond the bare 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 the specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource: 'full parameter schema' for godot_call methods. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like godot_call (execution) and godot_list_methods (listing), making the intent unambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs parameter schema details for godot_call methods, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives, nor mentions exclusions. There is no direct comparison with sibling tools such as godot_list_methods or godot_call, so the agent must infer the selection logic.

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