get_input_actions

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: an isolated ConfigFile parser, exclusion of engine defaults, no live InputMap state, and no project autoloads started. The description does not address why annotations mark this inspection tool as readOnlyHint=false, leaving that mismatch unexplained.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading what is inspected and then the important scoping caveats. Slightly terse given the parameter burden it leaves unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the caveats about defaults/live state/autoloads are valuable. Still, for a 3-parameter tool with undocumented parameters, an agent lacks guidance on filtering by action, pagination via limit, or what projectPath must contain.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. The meaning of 'action' (single-action filter) and 'limit' (1-200 cap) is left entirely to bare schema fields, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Inspect configured input actions and key/mouse/joypad bindings' read via a ConfigFile parser. This clearly separates it from the write-side sibling set_input_action, though no sibling is named 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?

Implies usage by stating what the tool is not (no engine defaults, no live InputMap changes), which nudges an agent toward runtime inspection tools when live state is needed. However it never explicitly says when to use this instead of set_input_action/remove_input_action, nor that projectPath must point at a project.godot.

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