godot_analyze_script

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by enumerating the exact checks performed, going beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions are present.

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 purpose and lists all pitfalls. Every part is informative with no wasted 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?

The description covers what the tool does but does not mention the output format or return value. Given no output schema, this is a gap that could affect an agent's understanding of the result.

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 single parameter 'path' is well-described in the input schema (coverage 100%). The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool analyzes GDScript files for exactly 10 specified pitfalls, using a specific verb ('Analyse') and resource (GDScript files). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like godot_analyze_scene by focusing on script-level issues.

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 lists all 10 pitfalls, giving clear context on when to use the tool (e.g., when suspecting Godot 3→4 API misuse or other listed issues). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the specific scope provides strong guidance.

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