connect_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the connection is persisted to the .tscn file or only held in memory, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate connections, or what error conditions exist (e.g., missing node, missing method). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the verb and resource lead. It is terse to the point of being thin for a six-parameter mutation tool, but there is no wasted text to trim.

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 annotations, no output schema, six required parameters, and an editor/scene-file mutation involved, the description should cover prerequisites, persistence behavior, and failure modes. It covers none of these, leaving the agent to guess how the connection is applied and whether it survives a save.

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 100%: all six parameters are documented in the schema with concrete examples ('pressed', '_on_button_pressed', 'root/Button'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 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 names a specific verb (connect) and a precise resource (a signal from one node to a method on another node), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like add_node or attach_script. It stops short of explicitly referencing any sibling or scene-editing context, but the operation itself is unmistakable.

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 prerequisites such as the source node needing to declare the signal, the target node needing the method, or whether the scene must already be open in the editor. The agent must infer all of this.

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