get_node_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the main behavior: parsing a .gd file and returning structured JSON with the listed elements. It does not address potential side effects, read-only guarantees, error behavior, or limitations such as not executing the script.

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: the first front-loads the resource and output contents, and the second clarifies the return format and purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only analysis tool with fully documented parameters and a description that enumerates the return fields, the essentials are covered. It could add explicit read-only/no-side-effect wording and error behavior, but the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description names method, variable, and dependency categories that map to the include* boolean parameters, but it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific resource type (a GDScript .gd file) and lists the extracted content: class name, extends, signals, exports, variables, methods, and dependencies. It is clear about what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_scene_insights.

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 communicates the general use case—understand a script without reading raw code—which implies when an agent would want it. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the sibling tools.

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