godot_list_methods

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

Annotations already establish safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are 'live from the connected editor' and output differs based on whether a category is supplied. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the two usage modes are clearly separated. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned in both invocation modes, and the annotations cover safety and side-effect behavior. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys the shape of results.

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 schema already covers the single optional parameter at 100%, including examples. The description reinforces this by explaining the no-argument vs. with-category behavior and reiterates the discovery workflow, adding value beyond the raw 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List available Godot addon methods, live from the connected editor.' This is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like godot_describe or godot_info.

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 gives concrete call patterns: 'Call with no arguments for category counts, or with a category to list its methods and one-line summaries.' However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention scenarios where another sibling would be more appropriate.

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