Wick

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. While 'Generates' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this creates files on disk, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on failure. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key features. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes relevant details without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated output looks like, how it's delivered, error conditions, or dependencies. While it covers the basic purpose, it lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use given the 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 description mentions structural elements ('extends, class_name, lifecycle functions, and signals') that map to some parameters (className, extends, includeReady/Process/PhysicsProcess), but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate. It provides high-level meaning but lacks specifics about parameter formats, constraints, or how they interact. Given the coverage gap, this is minimally adequate.

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 purpose: 'Generates a GDScript file template for a node type with proper structure'. It specifies the verb ('Generates'), resource ('GDScript file template'), and key structural elements ('extends, class_name, lifecycle functions, and signals'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_info' or 'script_list', which appear to be read operations rather than creation tools.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'script_list' or 'script_info' that might be relevant in a workflow. The context is implied (creating GDScript templates) but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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