godot_node_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read' implying read-only, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or response format. The list of actions hints at behavior but lacks depth.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. It lists actions in a comma-separated format without unnecessary words. Slight lack of formatting (e.g., bullet list) but still efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should comprehensively cover actions and parameter expectations. It only lists actions and a path example, leaving undefined what each action returns or how 'params' should be structured. This is insufficient for a tool with 2 parameters.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It lists possible values for 'action' (inspect, tree, find, etc.) and gives an example 'node_path=/root/....' for the 'params' field. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but the 'params' object remains underspecified.

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 clearly states the tool reads editor scene tree nodes and lists specific actions (inspect, tree, find, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'godot_node_edit' which is for modifications. The verb 'Read' plus the resource 'editor scene tree nodes' provides a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 implies use for reading node data via listed actions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'godot_node_edit' or 'godot_scene'. No explicit when-not-to-use or contextual guidance is provided.

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