godot_health

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions actions ('check, diagnostics') but does not describe what these do, side effects, or return values. It implies a read operation but is insufficiently transparent.

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, each earning its place. Front-loaded with purpose and action cues. No redundancy or filler.

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 lack of output schema and only two parameters, the description omits what the tool returns (status, diagnostic data), how to interpret results, and how 'diagnostics' differs from 'check'. Significant gaps remain.

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 0% description coverage. The description adds that 'action' can be 'check' or 'diagnostics', but does not explain the 'params' field or provide syntax or constraints. It only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states 'Connection health. Actions: check, diagnostics. Call first to verify connectivity.' which conveys a purpose of checking connectivity, but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like godot_network or godot_csharp_check. It could be more specific about what 'connection health' entails.

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 instruction 'Call first to verify connectivity' provides explicit context on when to use this tool—before other tools—but lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools for different connectivity checks (e.g., godot_csharp_check for C#).

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