godot_doctor

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description is consistent with that by saying it diagnoses and suggests fixes rather than applying them. It adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the bridge layers inspected and the checklist/fix-suggestion output form.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then uses a parenthetical list to communicate the scope without padding. Every clause contributes information.

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 no-parameter diagnostic tool with safety annotations, the description is complete: an agent knows what will be checked, what the output will look like at a high level, and that the operation is safe. No output schema exists, but the description's checklist/fix-suggestion statement gives enough expectation of return content.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is fully covered and no parameter documentation is needed. The description's specification of exactly what is diagnosed compensates for any lack of input details; baseline 4 applies.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Diagnose' and a concrete resource, 'the MCP bridge', then scopes it end-to-end with named layers (port, editor connection, auth, addon/server contract, Godot binary). This distinguishes it from siblings like godot_status or godot_info by promising a full diagnostic checklist plus fix suggestions.

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?

It clearly conveys when to use it: when a full end-to-end diagnosis of the MCP bridge is needed, including port, connection, auth, contract, and binary. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so no exclusions; that is why it doesn't get a 5.

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