signal_manage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions undoability for connect/disconnect and the editor_connection_count for list. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if a signal doesn't exist), permissions, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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-structured with a header and bullet points for each operation. It is concise, though some details (like the full parameter lists) could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without excessive 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?

Given the moderate complexity (three operations with distinct parameters), the description covers the core functionality but omits return value details (output schema exists but unused), error cases, and prerequisites. It is adequate for basic use but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by detailing each operation's parameters: list accepts 'include_editor', connect/disconnect require 'path', 'signal', 'target', 'method'. This adds essential meaning beyond the generic 'params' object in the 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 explicitly states the tool manages Godot's signal system and defines three specific operations: list, connect, and disconnect. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which cover different domains (animation, node, scene, etc.).

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 provides clear context for when to use each operation (e.g., list signals with optional editor-filters, connect/disconnect are undoable). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the scope is well-defined for a signal-specific tool.

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