signal_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful detail: connect/disconnect are undoable, list filters out editor-internal connections by default but can surface them, and the response includes editor_connection_count. This goes beyond bare operation names, though it does not discuss permissions or error behavior.

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 well-organized with a brief intro, three bullet-pointed operations, and a compact call-shape note. Every sentence provides useful information, and the structure makes the multi-op behavior easy to parse without unnecessary verbosity.

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 all operations, their parameter semantics, and key behaviors like undoability and default filtering. Since an output schema exists, return-value specifics are not required. It could briefly mention error conditions or signal name requirements, but the provided information is sufficient for most use cases.

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%, so the description must compensate fully, and it does. It names and explains each relevant parameter (path, include_editor, signal, target, method) within the operation snippets and clarifies the canonical call shape with op and params. This adds substantial meaning beyond the generic schema.

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 identifies signals as Godot's event/observer mechanism and enumerates the three operations: list, connect, and disconnect. This is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from the broader sibling set.

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?

Each operation is described with its intended use case: listing signals with optional editor-internal inclusion, connecting a signal to a target method, and disconnecting an existing connection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions among sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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