lentera-godot-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or mutation behavior. It does not state whether an existing animation is overwritten, whether the library path must be valid, or what happens on failure—leaving the agent without safety or expectation information.

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 short sentence, which is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential context needed for correct use, so its brevity is a deficiency rather than a strength.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and related sibling tools, the description provides far too little information. It does not explain what constitutes a valid library, how length is measured, the return value, or error conditions, making the tool unusable without additional research.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (name, length, library_path). It says nothing about units for length, what library_path refers to, or required formats, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('an animation to a library'), making the core operation clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_track or create_animation_library, though the action itself is distinct enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether the library must already exist (via create_animation_library) or how this relates to add_track and set_keyframe. No preconditions or use cases are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but does not disclose whether the autoload is validated, what happens on duplicate names, whether any settings are modified, or what the response looks like. No side effects, permissions, or error conditions are mentioned.

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, concise sentence that immediately front-loads the action and object. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

While the tool itself is simple, the description leaves critical gaps: no parameter semantics, no behavioral details, no annotations, and no output schema. The existence of related sibling tools (update_autoload, remove_autoload) suggests additional context could be provided, but the description does not provide it.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'name' and 'path' represent (e.g., whether path is a script path, project-relative). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Add' and identifies the resource as 'autoload (singleton),' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_autoload, update_autoload, and list_autoloads. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. The context is implied by the verb 'Add,' but it does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer this over update_autoload, or any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the addition operation but does not reveal whether a scene must be open, what the node's default properties are, whether the operation is destructive, or what response to expect. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: for a tool with three unillustrated parameters and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. It is not verbose, but it is not appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

The description is incomplete for its context. There are three parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain how to use the parameters or what the tool's effect on the scene is beyond the obvious. It does not address edge cases like parent node validity or scene requirements.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'type', 'name', or 'parent' at all, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of required values, such as what a valid 'type' might be.

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 'Add a new node to the scene' clearly identifies the verb (add) and resource (node to scene). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from siblings like duplicate_node or create_scene, though the action is distinct enough. It lacks explicit scoping such as 'to the current scene' which would further clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., duplicate_node, create_scene). There is no mention of prerequisites like an open scene, or when not to use it. The context is entirely absent, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description alone should disclose side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior. It only states 'Add a track' without explaining what 'track' means, whether it requires an existing animation, or what the outcome is.

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 extremely brief (one sentence) and lacks necessary detail, crossing from conciseness into under-specification. It provides no structure to guide an agent.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, this description is wholly inadequate. It fails to provide any of the operational context an agent would need.

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 has 4 required parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain any parameter meaning or relationship, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clear action (add) and resource (track to animation), making the tool's core function immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_animation or set_keyframe, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_animation or set_keyframe. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only restates the tool's purpose without explaining what 'attach' entails, such as whether it establishes a persistent connection, requires any prerequisites, or what happens if the editor is not running. This is a significant lack of transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and condition without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not exceptionally complete. It covers the key condition ('already running') but does not elaborate on the attachment process or how it relates to launch_editor and detach_project. Overall, it meets the minimum viable standard.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. No parameter semantics are required.

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 a specific verb 'attach' with a clear resource 'already running Godot Editor', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_editor (which would start a new editor) and detach_project (which would disconnect). It exactly states the tool's function.

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 phrase 'already running' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the editor is already active. It implies an alternative (launch_editor) without explicitly naming it, but the sibling list makes the intended usage clear. No exclusions are stated, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'attach' without disclosing side effects, requirements, or what happens on failure. This is minimal but not misleading, similar to a basic verb phrase.

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 clear sentence, so there is no fluff. However, it is under-specified to the point of being almost tautological; it earns a middle score because it is concise but not informative enough.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this one-line description is far too sparse. Given the large set of sibling tools for scene and script management, the agent needs more context about what attaching entails.

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 0%, and the description gives no meaning to 'node_path' or 'script_path'. The agent receives no hints about path formats, relative vs absolute, or node naming conventions.

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 'Attach a script to a node' clearly states the verb (attach) and resource (script to a node), distinguishing it from sibling 'detach_script' and other node operations. However, it lacks scope details such as what types of scripts or nodes are valid.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention that a scene must be open or that the script path format is required.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether 'clear' removes tile data, affects the scene graph, or what happens if the cell is already empty.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple action and 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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, this description is too minimal. It does not explain clear semantics, coordinate formats, or consequences, leaving significant gaps for a 2-parameter tool.

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 has two required parameters with no description, and the description adds nothing about them. An agent must guess that 'node_path' refers to the TileMapLayer and 'pos' to cell coordinates, which is not obvious.

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 clearly states the action (clear) and the resource (a cell in a TileMapLayer). It distinguishes from siblings like set_tilemap_cell and fill_tilemap_region by using the specific verb 'clear'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It states the action but not consequences: whether unsaved changes are lost, whether a confirmation prompt appears, or how the save parameter affects the operation. This hides critical details for a close operation.

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, short sentence that immediately states the action. It has no fluff and is easy to parse. While it is sparse, it earns its place for what it says, though additional details are missing.

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?

With one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address the parameter's effect, error handling (e.g., no current scene), or whether the operation is destructive/reversible. Given the side effects of closing a scene, the tool requires more explanatory context.

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 defines a single boolean 'save' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter, leaving its meaning ambiguous (e.g., save before closing? choose to save?). The description adds no value beyond the schema, and the schema itself is minimal.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Close the current scene.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like open_scene, save_scene, and create_scene. However, it doesn't mention the optional save parameter, which could blur the boundary between close and save operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't reference sibling tools, conditions, or scenarios such as discarding changes vs saving before close. The one-line description offers no context for choosing this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it discloses nothing about side effects, whether the connection is persistent, or any required permissions. The mutation behavior is implied only by the verb 'connect'.

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 short sentence and is front-loaded, but it is severely under-specified. It conveys almost no usable information, so the brevity is not a strength here.

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 four required string parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to clarify path formats, signal names, method signatures, or the effect of the connection.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters. It vaguely mentions 'signal' and 'method' but leaves source_path and target_path unexplained, offering no value beyond the parameter names.

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 action ('connect') and resource ('signal to a method'), which is clear at a basic level. However, it merely paraphrases the tool name and does not differentiate from siblings like disconnect_signal or emit_signal beyond the verb itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (scene vs. runtime), or scenarios where connecting signals is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states creation intent but does not reveal whether the tool overwrites existing paths, requires an open project, or fails on conflicts. No return value or side effects are described.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient in length but lacks any additional structural context. It is front-loaded but stops short of providing any useful details beyond the bare purpose, making it under-specified rather than appropriately sized.

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 tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what an AnimationLibrary is, where it gets created, or its relationship to sibling animation tools, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 has one required parameter 'path' with no description, and the tool description entirely fails to explain its meaning or format. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description does not compensate, leaving the agent to guess whether 'path' is a file path, resource path, or directory.

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 clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'AnimationLibrary', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_animation' or 'import_sprite' by specifying a distinct resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_animation' or 'import_sprite'. No prerequisites, workflow context, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states 'Create a new scene,' implying a write operation, but discloses no side effects such as whether it replaces the current scene, creates a file, or requires saving existing work.

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 extremely brief, which could be acceptable for a trivial tool, but under-specification is not conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to earn its place by omitting necessary details like parameter explanations.

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?

The tool operates in a rich editor context with many siblings, but the description gives no context about how a new scene is created, what root_type options exist, or what happens after creation. It is completely inadequate for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters 'name' or 'root_type' at all. It fails to provide any meaning or syntax beyond the bare property names, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose.

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 clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'scene', making the primary action unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like open_scene, save_scene, and close_scene through the 'create' verb, though it doesn't elaborate on what a new scene entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, project context, or scenarios where create_scene is preferred over open_scene or save_scene.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It simply states 'Delete a node from the scene' without disclosing whether the deletion is permanent, recursive, what happens to child nodes, or any error conditions.

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 concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is clear and direct, though it lacks necessary detail. As a short statement, it is appropriately sized but could be more informative.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the impact of the deletion, the expected format of 'path', or potential failures. This is incomplete relative to the tool's complexity.

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 has one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter, leaving the agent to infer that 'path' refers to the node's path from context. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema itself.

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 a specific verb 'delete' and a clear resource 'a node from the scene', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_node or move_node. However, it does not specify the scope of deletion (e.g., recursive or just the node itself), so it is not fully complete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or edge cases. The description gives no context for when deletion is appropriate or what conditions might prevent deletion.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states 'Detach from the Godot Editor' with zero information about side effects, such as whether unsaved changes are lost, whether the editor closes, or whether the project remains open. This is a complete lack of behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence, efficiently front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified, which detracts from effectiveness. It is not overly verbose, but it leans toward being too sparse for a complete tool description.

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?

The tool is simple with zero parameters and no output schema, but the description still fails to provide essential context. It does not explain what happens after detaching, how it relates to attach_project, or any operational consequences. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required.

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 clearly names the action (detach) and the object (Godot Editor), distinguishing it from the sibling tool attach_project. However, it does not specify what 'detach' entails (e.g., closing project, ending session), so it stops short of fully elaborating the purpose.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no context about when to use detach_project versus attach_project or other editor session tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the action without noting side effects, such as whether the script file is removed or only unlinked, or whether the operation is reversible. It also does not mention error conditions or permission requirements.

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, direct sentence of six words, efficiently front-loading the core action. However, it is so terse that it omits almost all supporting context, though that is more relevant to completeness than structure.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not specify the effect on the scene, whether the script is deleted or just detached, or what happens on invalid node paths, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 shows a single required string node_path with 0% description coverage. The description connects node_path to 'a node' but does not explain the expected path format (e.g., absolute vs. relative, NodePath syntax) or provide any examples, so it adds only marginal meaning 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 clearly states the action (detach) and resource (a script from a node), distinguishing it from sibling tools like attach_script and detach_project. The verb is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attach_script. There is no mention of prerequisites, required context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Disconnect a signal' without disclosing whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, has side effects, or returns anything. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (four words) but it adds almost no value over the tool name 'disconnect_signal' – it essentially restates the name in sentence form. It lacks any informative content and does not earn 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?

This tool has four required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The one-sentence description is woefully inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly. It provides no information about parameter semantics, behavior, or expected 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 input schema has four parameters (source_path, signal, target_path, method) with no descriptions, and the tool description provides zero explanation of these parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but completely fails to do so.

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 'Disconnect a signal' states a clear verb and resource, but it is vague and lacks context about what a 'signal' is, what disconnecting entails, or how it differs from related actions like connect_signal or remove_signal. It is more specific than a tautology but not enough to distinguish it from siblings beyond the verb itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description does not mention that connect_signal is the counterpart or any scenario where a disconnect is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether duplication includes children, how the duplicate is named, whether original node is affected, or any side effects. The description is completely opaque.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It adds no value beyond the tool name and is not front-loaded with useful 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 tool that duplicates a node in an editor with many sibling operations, this description is highly incomplete. It lacks details about the duplication process, the meaning of 'path', return values, and any prerequisites. The absence of an output schema makes this even more critical.

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 has a single 'path' parameter with no description, and the tool description offers no explanation of what 'path' refers to (e.g., path to the node to duplicate). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not.

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 'Duplicate a node.' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, restating the action without adding any detail about scope, behavior, or nuance. It does not distinguish itself from sibling operations beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_node' or 'reparent_node'. No context is provided about typical use cases or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'runtime only' but does not explain what emitting a signal entails (e.g., whether it triggers connected handlers synchronously), how args are handled, or what happens when used at non-runtime time. This is minimal disclosure.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and the runtime restriction, which is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though the brevity does cut into completeness.

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?

The tool has three parameters, one of which (args) is completely undocumented, and there is no output schema or annotations. The description is too terse to support reliable invocation: it doesn't clarify the format of args, expected signal names, or the practical implications of 'runtime only.'

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not compensate. It implicitly references node_path and signal through the phrase 'on a node,' but the third parameter 'args' is entirely unexplained. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw property names.

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 clearly states the action (emit a signal) and the resource (a node), and the scope qualifier 'runtime only' adds specificity. This distinguishes it from siblings like connect_signal or disconnect_signal, which manage connections rather than trigger signals directly.

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 phrase 'runtime only' provides a context cue regarding when the tool is applicable, implying it is not for editor-time use. However, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any statements about exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions the export action and gives no information about side effects (e.g., file writes, overwrites), required permissions, duration, or whether the project needs to be loaded. This is a significant transparency gap for a likely mutating operation.

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 concise sentence, which is good for front-loading, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but there is no additional detail to aid usage. It is not as minimal as a tautology, but it is not sufficiently informative for a tool with two required parameters.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and only minimal parameter info, the description is far from complete. For a tool that likely performs a build/export operation, the description does not mention expected outcome, error conditions, or any relationship to other project lifecycle tools. It is inadequate for an agent to use it confidently without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of 'preset' or 'output_path'. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the names, leaving the agent to guess what presets are available and how the output path is used.

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 'Export the project via preset' clearly identifies the action (export) and the target (project), with the method (via preset) also indicated. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings focused on running, editing, or managing scenes and nodes, although it does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative, no prerequisites (e.g., project must be open, saved) and no exclusions. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer when export_project is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tiles), coordinate system expectations, whether the region is inclusive, or any required permissions. The one-line description provides minimal behavioral insight.

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, succinct sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action, although it is minimal. This is efficient but lacks structural detail that could aid comprehension.

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 tool with five parameters, nested objects, and no annotations or output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not clarify how start_pos/end_pos define the region, how atlas_coords and source_id identify the tile, or what node_path refers to. The complexity demands far more context than provided.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (node_path, start_pos, end_pos, source_id, atlas_coords). The description merely states the action without mapping to parameters, forcing the agent to rely on raw schema names with no semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the action ('Fill') and the target resource ('a region in a TileMapLayer'), specifying the operation's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_tilemap_cell' (single cell) and 'clear_tilemap_cell' (removing tiles) by focusing on filling a region.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool over 'set_tilemap_cell' or other tile operations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the main behavior (bringing the window to front) but does not disclose potential limitations or side effects, such as whether it may fail if the editor is minimized or if it steals focus from other applications. The behavior is simple and benign, but additional context would improve transparency.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it is front-loaded with the action verb. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that it affects the OS window stack only and does not modify project state, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no information is missing. The schema already reflects the absence of parameters.

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 clearly states the action: bringing the Godot editor window to front. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like launch_editor by focusing on window management rather than launching or project operations.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the editor needing to be running, or suggest using it after launch_editor or before taking screenshots. It simply states the action, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides no information about whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the animation or library path is invalid, or what the response format is. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely short, but it merely restates the tool name in sentence form without adding substantive value. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative, so it does not earn its place as a useful addition.

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?

This is a simple tool with no output schema and no parameter details in the description. The description gives no indication of what 'info' means, what the return value contains, or how the parameters relate to each other. Given the sibling tools, this lacks the contextual depth needed to use 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the purpose or format of the two required parameters: 'library_path' and 'anim_name'. Without any parameter-level context, the user must infer from the parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a tool that may require exact path specifications.

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 'Get info about an animation' clearly states a get operation targeting animation info. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_resource_info' by explicitly mentioning animations, and it is specific enough to indicate a read action on a single animation resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like 'get_resource_info' or explain scenarios where animation-specific info is needed, nor does it note any prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation and provides no details about return format, read-only nature, error behavior, or any side effects. This is barely above a tautology and lacks meaningful transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and earns full marks for conciseness.

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?

The description is minimal and for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out essential context such as the structure of the collision matrix (e.g., a 2D array of booleans), how it relates to physics layers, or any prerequisites. It is barely minimum viable, lacking important surrounding information.

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 shows zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter coverage gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('physics layer collision matrix'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish from similar tools like get_physics_layers, but the addition of 'collision matrix' separates it from simple layer listing, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_physics_layers or validate_collision_setup. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read, but does not explain what 'recent' means, whether output is cleared, expected format, or side effects. Minimal value beyond the tool name.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with no parameters, annotations, or output schema, the description is minimal but functional. However, 'recent' is vague, and it does not clarify what the returned debug output looks like (string, list, etc.) or whether an active editor is required.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately avoids adding param details that don't exist.

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 'Get recent debug output from the Godot Editor' uses a specific verb (get), resource (debug output), and scope (Godot Editor). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings, none of which mention retrieving debug output.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., editor must be running), nor any exclusionary or alternative tool references.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get the current status' without disclosing whether this is a safe read operation, what it returns, or how it behaves when the editor is not connected. Minimal transparency.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and directly states the resource, making it optimally concise.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only guide for the agent. It fails to explain what 'status' includes (e.g., connected/disconnected, editor version, any error states) or what to expect in the response. This leaves significant ambiguity for such a minimal tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema fully documents input). The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 resource 'current status of the Godot Editor connection', which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like launch_editor or attach_project. It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.

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 use when checking whether the editor is connected, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any situational context. There are no exclusions, but the usage context is only implied by the purpose, not stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get properties of a node' only implies a read operation and gives no information about return format, error handling, or what 'properties' includes, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 terse and front-loaded, but its extreme brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It conveys the core idea but omits necessary details, so it is not optimally structured for agent guidance.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what is returned and how the path parameter works. It does neither, leaving the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 defines a single 'path' parameter, but the description provides no explanation of its format, purpose, or how it identifies the node. With 0% schema coverage in the description, it fails to add any semantic value beyond the bare parameter name.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Get properties of a node') and accurately conveys the tool's basic function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_node_signals or set_node_properties, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing among many sibling node-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose any edge cases, such as whether inherited signals are included, what happens for invalid node types, or the exact nature of the response. The minimal behavior is implied but not explicitly described.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and appropriately structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only getter), the description covers the primary function. However, it does not describe the return format or error behavior, and no output schema exists. This leaves a notable gap for the agent to predict the tool's response, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 description adds meaning by clarifying that the single 'type' parameter refers to a 'node type', which aligns with the schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, this is minimal compensation; it does not specify valid values, formats, or examples. The agent can infer the parameter's purpose but lacks full semantic detail.

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 'Get available signals of a node type' uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('available signals') and scope ('node type'), making it distinct from the sibling 'list_signals' which likely covers a broader scope. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_signals' or 'connect_signal'. The description implies its use for a specific node type but provides no exclusions or context for selection among siblings. This is a clear gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It merely states the operation and does not disclose whether it is read-only, what the return format is, or how layers are structured. It adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose directly with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description is nearly complete. It states what it gets and from where. However, since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned structure or format could be useful, though not strictly necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, which gives a baseline of 4. The description adds a small amount of meaning by specifying the source ('from project settings'), which clarifies the scope beyond the empty 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 a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('named 2D physics layers') with an explicit source ('from project settings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_settings, which covers broader settings.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_project_settings could be an alternative, nor does it specify any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'get settings' without disclosing whether it is read-only, the return format, or any side effects. The name implies a read operation, but the description does not confirms it.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified and essentially repeats the tool name without adding meaningful context. It is concise but not effectively structured for an AI agent.

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?

The description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the parameter, the return value, prerequisites, or any edge cases. Even for a simple tool, the lack of any supporting detail makes it inadequate.

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 only parameter 'prefix' is completely undocumented. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what the prefix filters or how it is used. This is a significant failure for a one-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool gets Godot project settings, which is a specific verb and resource. It is not a pure tautology, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like set_project_setting beyond the obvious read vs. write contrast.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of its relationship to set_project_setting or any context such as requiring an open project.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of information is returned, how errors are handled, or any side effects. The term 'info' is undefined, leaving the agent guessing about the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified and lacks essential details, making it more terse than useful. It earns its place but is not sufficiently informative.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still extremely incomplete. It does not explain what information is returned, how to use the path parameter, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. The description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.

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 has zero description coverage for the 'path' parameter, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. It does not clarify what kind of path is expected (file path, resource path), the format, or how it relates to the resource. The description adds no semantic meaning 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 clearly states the action ('Get info') and the object ('a Godot resource'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on specific elements like scenes or nodes. However, 'info' is vague and could mean metadata, properties, or type information, so it is not fully specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what it does without any usage context.

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

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

The description only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but provides no details on return format, whether it scans recursively, what kinds of external dependencies are included, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to address any of these aspects.

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 concise sentence, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it is under-specified: it lacks any structured elaboration on what 'external dependencies' means or how the path should be provided, making it minimally viable but not well-structured.

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 simplicity, a one-sentence description could be sufficient, but it lacks key context. There is no mention of output, prerequisites, or how this relates to sibling tools like get_resource_info. The absence of annotations and output schema makes the description incomplete for an AI agent to select and use it effectively.

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 has one required parameter 'path' with no description at all, and the tool description provides no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate but did not; the parameter's semantics are entirely unspecified.

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 clearly states the tool gets external dependencies of a scene file. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools. However, it lacks explicit scope details like 'all' or recursive behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, such as whether the scene must be open, or whether this is preferred over get_resource_info for dependency queries. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not specify the return format, whether it includes hidden nodes, or error behavior when no scene is open. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, effectively communicating the core purpose.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete but leaves the return structure underspecified. It says 'node tree' but does not clarify whether it is a nested hierarchy, list, or map. This is a minor gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. The description does not add parameter semantics, but the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('node tree') and explicitly scopes it to the current scene. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_properties or get_scene_dependencies.

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 usage when you need the node tree, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_scene_dependencies or get_node_properties. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get info' which implies a read operation, but nothing about possible errors, what node_path must refer to, or what the response contains. The behavior is under-specified.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified, omitting essential details, so the brevity is not a strength in this case.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'info' means and set expectations for the return value. It does not do so, leaving the tool's functionality incomplete for an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'node_path' parameter, its format, or its role. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the tool gets 'info about a TileMapLayer', using a specific verb and resource. However, 'info' is vague and no specifics are given about what kind of info, making it less clear than it could be. It does distinguish from sibling tilemap mutation tools, but lacks the detail to fully clarify its purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states what it does, so the agent receives no help in selecting it appropriately.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves visible UI elements, but does not disclose the return format, whether it returns a flat list or hierarchy, or any side effects. As a simple read operation, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but incomplete. It does not explain what format the UI elements are returned in or what 'visible' entails (e.g., viewport visibility, runtime scene tree). The absence of an output schema means the agent has to infer the return structure, which could lead to errors.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. The schema is empty and the description does not reference any parameters, which is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'UI elements', qualified by 'visible in the running project'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scene_tree or get_editor_status, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or context for use. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without information about preferred scenarios or comparisons to similar getter tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It merely says 'Import' without mentioning whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions are needed, or any project state changes. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters. It is closer to a tautology than a helpful guide, lacking any additional structure or detail.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what a 'sprite' is in this context, how source_path and target_path relate, or what happens after import. The tool's simplicity does not excuse this incompleteness.

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 lists two parameters (source_path, target_path) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving their meaning and relationship entirely unexplained.

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 clearly states the action ('Import') and the object ('a sprite'), and the phrase 'into the project' clarifies the destination. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'reimport_asset', which handles existing assets, though it could be more explicit about the asset type or format.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to prefer this over 'reimport_asset' or other asset-related tools. There are no exclusions or contextual cues beyond the basic action.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, return behavior, or what happens if the editor is already running.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool and gets straight to the point.

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?

The description tells what the tool does but lacks context about return values, prerequisites, or side effects. For a simple launch tool, it is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since the schema is empty and there is nothing to add.

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 clearly states the tool launches the Godot Editor, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_project and focus_editor_window, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention whether the editor must already be running or how it relates to other editor tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself indicates that this is a list operation, implying no side effects. It adds scope with 'configured,' but does not disclose return format, ordering, or error behavior.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource.

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 parameterless list tool, this description fully states the purpose. It does not describe return values, but the lack of output schema and the simplicity of the tool reduce the need; still, a note about what is included in the list could add completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, giving a baseline of 4.

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 a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('configured autoloads'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_autoload and remove_autoload by indicating a read-only enumeration.

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 usage is implied: use this tool to view current autoload configurations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List files in the Godot project' without mentioning recursion, file type filters, whether directories are included, or the output format. This lacks the transparency needed for a listing operation.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it lacks any structural elements like parameter explanations or usage notes, and the brevity leads to under-specification rather than effective clarity.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal parameter schema, the description should explain what 'list files' returns (e.g., full paths, names, recursive listing). It does not, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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 0% and the description makes no mention of the 'dir_path' parameter or its default behavior. The agent is left without any explanation of how to specify a directory or that it defaults to 'res://', so the description adds zero value beyond the bare schema field name.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files in the Godot project'), making the basic purpose clear. It does not elaborate on the scope or format, and among sibling tools like search_project or get_resource_info, it is distinct enough but could benefit from clarifying that it lists all project files.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_project or get_resource_info. The description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it adds no information about return format, read-only nature, or any side effects. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. While it is highly efficient, it is also terse to the point of minimalism, though this is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is complete for the basic action but lacks essential context such as return values (no output schema) and any behavior expectations. Given the existence of a sibling tool (get_node_signals), the description does not fully clarify its role, making it inadequate for confident tool selection.

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 parameter node_path is not described in the schema, but the description's phrase 'of a node' implies its meaning. However, it adds no additional detail about path format or constraints, leaving the schema to carry the structural information.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List signals') and specifies the resource ('of a node'), making it a specific verb+resource statement. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool get_node_signals, which appears to serve a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Move a node within its parent' without explaining side effects, whether it's a write operation, how indexing works, or possible failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence, which is structurally simple and easy to read. However, it is under-specified; the brevity sacrifices critical detail, so while it earns a middle score for conciseness, it fails to fully satisfy the purpose of a tool description.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should explain the role of each parameter and the exact effect of the move. It does not describe the return value, error conditions, or how it relates to similar tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of 'path' or 'index' beyond their names. 'index' could mean the target position or the node to move, creating ambiguity. The description adds no value to 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 clearly states the action ('Move') and the resource ('a node'), with a scope qualifier ('within its parent') that helps distinguish it from sibling tools like reparent_node. However, it doesn't explicitly explain that 'move' means reordering among siblings or the exact semantics of the move, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reparent_node or add_node. The phrase 'within its parent' implies it's for same-parent reordering, but this is not explicitly stated, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Open a scene file' without disclosing side effects (e.g., changing the current editor scene), required editor state, error handling, or return behavior. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise sentence with no redundant text. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices valuable context, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise. Efficiency is good, but completeness suffers.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain path format, whether the scene is loaded into the current project, or what the agent can expect in return. The agent lacks enough context to invoke the tool correctly and safely.

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 0%, and the description does not clarify the 'path' parameter's expected format (e.g., absolute vs relative, file extension). The parameter name provides minimal meaning, but the description adds no value beyond what the name implies.

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 the core action 'Open' and the resource 'scene file', clearly distinguishing it from create/save/close scene operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'launch_editor', which might be confused as opening a scene, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_scene or launch_editor. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without a clear decision framework.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Reimport a project asset.' It does not mention side effects such as overwriting existing imported data, whether it requires the path to exist, or what happens on failure. This is a minimal disclosure.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words, though it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is not complete enough. It fails to provide usage context, behavioral effects, or parameter semantics, leaving an agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only calls the target a 'project asset,' implying that the 'path' parameter identifies the asset, but it does not explain path format, required extensions, or whether the path should be relative or absolute.

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 clearly states the action ('Reimport') and the resource ('a project asset'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'import_sprite', but the prefix 're-' implies re-importing an existing asset, which is a useful distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not say that the asset must already exist or that this is for refreshing assets after external changes.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'reload' without disclosing behavioral traits such as state reset, whether the autoload is re-instantiated, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a runtime mutation-like operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, the description lacks important behavioral context about what reloading does, possible errors, or return values. With no annotations or output schema, the description carries the full burden and doesn't meet it.

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 has one 'name' parameter with no description, and the tool description doesn't clarify what 'name' refers to (e.g., autoload name, file path, or display name). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 a specific verb 'reload' and identifies the resource 'autoload' with a runtime qualifier, making the action clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_autoload, remove_autoload, update_autoload, and list_autoloads, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related autoload management tools. It doesn't mention scenarios where reloading is appropriate, prerequisites, or situations to avoid.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove an autoload' with no information about side effects, reversibility, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise, with no filler. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices clarity for brevity, though it does earn 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description provides only the bare minimum. It doesn't explain what an autoload is, how the name is specified, or any related context, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 has a single 'name' string parameter with no description, and the tool description doesn't explain what value it expects (e.g., autoload name vs file path). With zero schema description coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 'remove' and the resource 'autoload', clearly distinguishing it from sibling autoload operations like add_autoload, update_autoload, and list_autoloads. It accurately conveys the tool's core function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when to prefer a sibling like update_autoload. The description leaves the user to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

No behavioral information is disclosed beyond the basic action. With no annotations, the description does not mention whether the rename is persistent, what happens to references, or any side effects, which is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence, which is terse, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits necessary context, making it too minimal to be effective.

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?

With two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is grossly insufficient. The agent lacks context about node path conventions, naming rules, or invocation requirements, making the tool description incomplete.

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 0% and the description does not explain 'path' or 'new_name'. The agent is left without any understanding of expected formats or constraints, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema details.

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 'Rename a node' uses a clear verb and resource, aligning with the tool name and distinguishing it from siblings like move_node or delete_node. However, it lacks any detail about scope or context, so it is clear but not rich.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_node or set_node_properties. The description provides no context, exclusions, or alternative references, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states the action without mentioning that the node is removed from its old parent, whether the new parent must exist, what happens to the node's position, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a structural mutation tool.

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 sentence that directly states the action and target. It is free of unnecessary words, front-loaded, and efficient, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description would need to explain the semantics of reparenting, any validation rules, and the effect on the old parent. It does none of this, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain how 'path' and 'new_parent' correspond to the node and its intended parent. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already shows, failing to compensate for the lack of property descriptions.

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 'reparent' and identifies the resource 'node' and the target 'new parent', making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_node, delete_node, and move_node, though it does not explicitly contrast with move_node to clarify the difference between moving and reparenting.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use reparent_node versus alternatives such as move_node or set_node_properties. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Run an arbitrary GDScript snippet' and fails to mention execution context, side effects, or output behavior, which is a significant gap for a tool that runs arbitrary code.

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 short and front-loaded with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool that executes arbitrary code. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary context.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and the high-risk nature of arbitrary script execution, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or the execution environment.

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 has one parameter, 'script', with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'GDScript snippet' to clarify that the parameter expects GDScript code, providing some semantic value beyond the raw schema. However, no additional detail about format or constraints is given.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Run') and resource ('GDScript snippet'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'validate_gdscript' and 'attach_script'. The scope ('arbitrary') adds specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that executing arbitrary code may have side effects or suggest safer alternatives like 'validate_gdscript' for validation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run' without explaining whether it starts a blocking process, what environment it runs in, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple command, though it could have included more useful context without becoming verbose.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain prerequisites (e.g., an attached project), expected outcomes, or how it relates to stop_project. It is too minimal to be fully actionable for an AI agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none.

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 clearly states the action ('Run') and the resource ('the Godot project'), making the core purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like launch_editor or stop_project, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as requiring an attached project or distinguishing it from launch_editor. There are no context cues or conditions for use.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Save the current scene.' It does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing files, what happens if no scene is open, or whether any confirmation is required. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the behavior of the 'path' parameter, the effect on unsaved changes, or error conditions. For a mutating operation, this lacks essential context, even for a simple tool.

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 has one parameter 'path' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, failing to clarify whether it specifies a destination path or defaults to the current file. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema field name.

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 'save' with the resource 'current scene', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like open_scene, close_scene, and create_scene. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether to use it after making modifications or how it relates to scene lifecycle. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without guidance on appropriate invocation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Search for files' without disclosing output format, read-only behavior, case sensitivity, or search semantics. The agent receives no useful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it sacrifices explanatory detail for brevity.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse to fully inform invocation. It omits return format, search result interpretation, and any relationship to sibling file-related tools.

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 has one 'query' parameter with only a type, and the description does not clarify whether the query matches filenames, paths, content, or supports patterns. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description should have compensated with parameter details.

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 clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('files in the Godot project'). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_project_files by its query-based nature, though it does not explicitly detail search criteria.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_project_files or get_resource_info. There is no mention of search scope, use cases, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'set the loop mode,' but does not explain what loop_mode number means, what happens if the animation doesn't exist, whether changes are persisted, or if there are side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise but under-specified, though conciseness in itself is fine.

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 three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal to allow correct invocation. It lacks enum values for loop_mode, relationship between library_path and anim_name, and any error/return behavior.

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 has three required parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not mention any of them or their semantics. The agent is left to guess what loop_mode numeric values are valid and how library_path relates to anim_name.

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 clearly states the tool's function: setting the loop mode of an animation. It uses a specific verb and resource, and no sibling tool shares this exact purpose, so it distinguishes itself. However, it lacks any additional scope or qualifiers, so a 5 isn't warranted.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_animation or set_keyframe, nor any prerequisites or context. The description is a bare statement with no usage conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without explaining whether existing keyframes are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the track or animation does not exist. No safety or state-changing context is provided beyond the verb 'set'.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is not overly verbose, but it is also under-specified for the tool's complexity. The brevity is good, but it could include more helpful detail while remaining concise.

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?

The tool has 5 required parameters, a nested object value, and no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description is completely inadequate for understanding the full context, such as the structure of the 'value' object, how to identify the animation/track, or the expected effect of the operation. It fails to provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter explanation. The parameter names (library_path, anim_name, track_idx, time, value) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the 'value' parameter is an object with unknown structure, and the relationship between library_path, anim_name, and track_idx is not clarified. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Set a keyframe') and the resource ('on a track'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, none of which mention keyframing. The inclusion of 'track' aligns with the parameter track_idx, giving a clear purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as having an animation library, animation, or track created first, nor does it point to related tools like add_track or add_animation. The context of animation editing is implied but not stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral consequences. It implies mutation but offers no details on whether properties are merged or replaced, whether the node must exist, or how errors and invalid inputs are handled. This is more than a tautology but still insufficient.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with an opaque properties object and no annotations. It is concise to the point of inadequacy rather than efficient.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an untyped nested properties object, so the description must compensate. It provides no context about supported property keys, mutation semantics, error behavior, or return values, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool safely.

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 0%, and the description names no parameters. It does not define the expected format of 'path' or the structure of the 'properties' object, which is an untyped nested object. The description adds no parameter-level value 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 clearly states a mutating operation on a node's properties using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling get_node_properties, but it does not clarify the scope of 'properties' or differentiate from related operations like rename_node.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, relationships to add_node/delete_node, or exclusions for property types that may overlap with other tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'set' without covering effects like overwriting, persistence, validation, permissions, or error handling. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, sacrificing informative value for brevity. It is not as efficient as it could be because it omits necessary context.

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 simplicity (two parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is the only source of context. It does not explain what settings are valid, how to specify nested settings, or the effect of changing them. This is inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter formats or allowed values. It does not. The parameter names 'setting' and 'value' are self-explanatory, but the description adds no further meaning, leaving the agent to guess about valid settings or value types.

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 clearly states the action (set) and resource (Godot project setting), but it essentially restates the tool name and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_project_settings. It is clear but minimal, lacking any scope or nuance.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The single sentence gives no contextual direction for selecting this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set a cell' which is obvious from the name, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., overwriting existing cells), coordinate conventions, source texture requirements, or whether the node must be already in the scene.

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?

While the description is a single short sentence and free of fluff, it is under-specified for a tool with four required parameters, including nested objects. The lack of detail makes it poorly structured for practical use, despite its brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is critically incomplete. It provides no usage context, parameter details, or behavioral expectations, making correct invocation nearly impossible without external Godot knowledge.

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 has zero parameter descriptions and the tool description does not explain any of the four parameters. 'node_path', 'pos', 'source_id', and 'atlas_coords' are left to inference, and the nested objects ('pos', 'atlas_coords') are particularly opaque. The description fails to add meaning 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 clearly identifies the action ('set') and the resource ('a cell in a TileMapLayer'), which paraphrades the tool name without being a pure tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like clear_tilemap_cell or fill_tilemap_region beyond the choice of verb, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as clear_tilemap_cell, fill_tilemap_region, or get_tilemap_info, nor does it state any prerequisites like node_path pointing to a TileMapLayer.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'in the running project' which implies a dependency, but it does not disclose coordinate system, button behavior, side effects, or response details. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it lacks detail. This is appropriately concise for a simple tool, earning a high score.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain parameters or provide usage context relative to siblings. It is inadequate for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what x, y, or button mean, nor the coordinate system or button codes. The parameter names are self-evident for x/y but button is ambiguous, and the description adds no clarifying value.

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 clearly states the action (simulate), the resource (mouse click), and the context (running project). It distinguishes from siblings like simulate_mouse_move and simulate_keyboard by specifying 'click'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without describing side effects, whether it simulates key press and release, if the window needs focus, or how the input is delivered to the running project. This leaves safety and expectations unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and readable, but the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of informational value, making it less effective than it could be while still being appropriately structured.

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 tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify parameter semantics, usage context, or expected behavior, leaving significant gaps for the agent to 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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'keycode' or 'pressed' parameters. The agent is left to guess what keycode number represents and what the boolean 'pressed' means (e.g., true for press, false for release).

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Simulate keyboard input in the running project.' It uses a specific verb (simulate) and resource (keyboard input), and the scope ('in the running project') distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulate_click and simulate_mouse_move, which handle mouse input.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for keyboard events, nor does it contrast with mouse simulation siblings or explain typical use cases (e.g., testing game controls).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only hints that the operation happens 'in the running project', but does not disclose side effects (e.g., triggering hover events), coordinate system, or behavior if the project is not running.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured for quick reading, though it sacrifices essential detail for brevity.

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 simplicity (two numeric params, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It omits crucial context like coordinate system, whether the movement is absolute or relative, and any constraints on the running project state.

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 description does not explain the x and y parameters at all, leaving schema coverage at 0%. It does not specify whether they are absolute screen coordinates, relative offsets, or game-view coordinates, adding no value beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('simulate') and resource ('mouse movement'), and the phrase 'in the running project' adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulate_click and simulate_keyboard, which target different inputs.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project running) or when not to use it, such as preferring simulate_click for clicks or simulate_keyboard for keys.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Stop the running Godot project' without revealing whether the stop is graceful, whether unsaved changes are saved, or what happens if no project is running. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but does not cover important edge behaviors (e.g., errors if no project is running, side effects on project state). It is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space. Per calibration, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly provides no unnecessary parameter information.

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 clearly states the action (stop) and the resource (the running Godot project). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like run_project, as it is the direct inverse operation.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided, such as 'use after run_project' or mention that it only applies when a project is running. The intended usage is implied but not stated, and no alternatives are referenced.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only the basic action, but does not disclose whether the image is saved to disk, returned to the caller, or what format/behavior to expect. This is a significant lack of behavioral context.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, conveying the essential purpose in under ten words.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal but sufficient for a no-parameter tool if the return behavior is obvious. However, the phrase 'as an image' leaves ambiguous whether the image is returned, saved, or displayed, so more detail on the output would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already fully covers the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed, and the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool 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 clearly states the action ('Capture') and the specific resource ('Godot editor window') and the output type ('as an image'). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which capture screenshots.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no context is provided for prerequisites or typical scenarios. Since there are no sibling tools with similar functionality, the absence of explicit when-to-use guidance is a notable gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies the autoload must already exist ('existing'), but does not disclose behavior when it doesn't, whether the update is reversible, or any error/permission conditions. Minimal behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence that efficiently states the purpose. It is not verbose, but it lacks elaboration; however, for a simple update operation, it is appropriately compact.

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?

The tool is simple (2 string params, no output schema), and the description states the core action. However, it does not cover edge cases (e.g., nonexistent autoload), path format expectations, or success/failure semantics, leaving notable gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'name' or 'path' parameters at all. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, with no additional meaning or format guidance from the description.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('autoload path'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_autoload and remove_autoload. The scope is explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no contextual conditions. The description is merely a single sentence without any 'use this when' or 'instead of' hints.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the validation target and requirement list, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., pass/fail, list of issues), or potential side effects. This leaves important behavioral traits ambiguous for the agent.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Validate') and immediately states the resource and requirements. Every word contributes necessary information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior but omits what happens after validation (e.g., return format, whether it modifies anything). Since there is no output schema, the description should have disclosed the result behavior to be fully complete.

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 empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds value by specifying what is validated and the required layer names, which gives context beyond the empty 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 a specific verb ('Validate') and a clear resource ('the project's physics layers'), and it lists the exact requirements (world, player, enemy, attack_hitbox, hurtbox, interactable). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_physics_layers or get_collision_matrix, which only retrieve data without validating.

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 usage for checking collision layer setup against Lentera Pudar requirements, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before running the project) or mention alternatives. The purpose alone provides some guidance, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the file is not run, but does not explain what validation entails, whether it reads the file, or what the return/output might be. This is a significant gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no redundant information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand behavior. It lacks information about validation results, error handling, and any prerequisites, leaving the tool under-specified.

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 has one `path` parameter with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It refers to 'a GDScript file,' which gives some meaning, but it does not specify path format, whether the file must exist, or any constraints on the path.

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 clearly states the tool validates a GDScript file, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool run_gdscript by explicitly noting 'without running it.'

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 phrase 'without running it' provides clear context that this is for validation when execution is not desired, implying a contrast with running tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, 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.

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Zoom' without explaining side effects, how zoom_level is interpreted, whether a scene must be loaded, or if the change is persistent. This is entirely opaque.

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 short sentence with no extraneous words, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which is more of a completeness issue than a conciseness problem.

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 tool with one parameter, a one-line description could suffice if it explained the key parameter semantics. Here, the critical zoom_level value is completely undocumented, and there is no mention of return values or side effects, making the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 defines zoom_level as a number with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to clarify what value to provide (e.g., 1.0 = normal, 2.0 = zoom in). This is a critical omission.

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 action ('Zoom') and resource ('the Godot 2D editor'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_editor_status or create_scene. However, it does not clarify whether it sets an absolute zoom level or zooms in/out incrementally, so it is not maximally precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the editor needing to be open. The only hint is the verb 'Zoom,' which is too minimal to count as meaningful usage guidance.

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