analyze_godot_pck

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 analysis is read-only, whether large archives are paginated, how contents are structured in the response, or any limits. 'Analyze' and 'list its contents' give only the vaguest behavioral signal.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target. No filler, no redundant restatement of the name.

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?

A 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema: the description should explain what 'listing contents' returns (file entries? asset paths? sizes?) and any behavioral caveats. It leaves the agent guessing about the response shape and safe usage.

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% – both file_path and filter are documented in the schema. The description adds no format details, accepted extensions, or filter syntax beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (Godot .pck archive) with the added outcome 'list its contents'. Clear enough to distinguish from generic tools like analyze_file_format or analyze_pe_full, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 indication of when to use this versus siblings such as detect_engine, unpack_game, decode_assets, or read_asset, all of which could operate on game archives. No preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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