emit_signal

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.