Godot MCP

by mcintalmo

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have genuinely unclear boundaries, most notably godot_set_editor_selection vs godot_set_selected_nodes and godot_take_screenshot vs godot_capture_viewport. Even with 126 tools, these near-duplicate pairs make reliable tool selection difficult.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools consistently follow the godot_ prefix plus a verb_noun snake_case pattern, such as get_version, list_nodes, create_node, and bake_navmesh. Even specialized tools like configure_animation_tree and generate_ragdoll fit the same convention perfectly.
Tool Count1/5
126 tools is an extreme mismatch for a coherent toolset, far beyond even a generous interpretation of a broad Godot engine MCP. The count makes the surface overwhelmingly hard to navigate and maintain.
Completeness4/5
The server covers an impressively wide range of Godot subsystems: scene editing, scripting, rendering, physics, animation, audio, UI, multiplayer, XR, and asset workflows. However, there are minor lifecycle gaps such as connect_signal with no disconnect_signal, no 2D raycast tool, and no way to remove audio buses or translations.
Average 3.2/5 across 119 of 126 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., modifying the active scene), requirements (e.g., a MultiplayerSpawner node must exist), or any operational details. The annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-idempotent, but the description adds nothing extra.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, so it is not verbose. However, it achieves conciseness at the expense of clarity and usefulness. It is too brief to convey the tool's actual function, making it a poor trade-off.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of configuring a MultiplayerSpawner (with multiple parameters and likely requiring specific node setup), the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of the tool, its parameters, or typical use cases. An agent would have no idea how to invoke it correctly based solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not add any meaning to the input parameters. The schema already includes descriptions for spawn_path, spawn_limit, spawnable_scenes, spawner_node_path, and clear_spawnable_scenes. The tool description only says 'setup paths' which doesn't clarify how these parameters interact or their purpose beyond the schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Setup automated network node spawning paths' is vague and lacks specificity. It doesn't explicitly mention the MultiplayerSpawner node or the configuration aspects (e.g., spawn limit, spawnable scenes). It could be confused with other network or spawning tools, and the verb 'setup' is generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_configure_multiplayer_synchronizer or godot_simulate_network_conditions. There is no mention of scenarios requiring MultiplayerSpawner configuration or conditions that would make this tool appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides zero behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations. With all hints false (not readOnly, not destructive, not idempotent), the description should clarify side effects such as node creation, file saving, or mutation semantics, but it makes no mention of these.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with many parameters. It lacks any structure, front-loading of critical constraints, or organization that would help an agent quickly grasp its scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a rich schema and output schema, the description fails to explain return values, whether the tool creates or modifies nodes, or how to choose between node_name and node_path. It is incomplete for such a multifaceted tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about the 18+ parameters. The schema has descriptions, but the context reports 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not, leaving agents without guidance on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the verb 'Configure' and the resource 'GPUParticles2D/3D or CPUParticles2D/3D node emission', clearly distinguishing it from general node manipulation tools. It is specific and not a tautology, though it doesn't enumerate the exact emission attributes that can be adjusted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_create_node or godot_modify_node. It doesn't explain whether it creates new nodes, modifies existing ones, or both, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations are all false (no readOnly, idempotent, or destructive hints), so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Inject', implying mutation, but does not explain whether the effect is temporary, how it can be reset, or whether it impacts the running project. No details on side effects or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, just one short sentence, and front-loads the action. However, it lacks any structural elements like sections or outcome information. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified, making it less useful than an equally concise but information-dense description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, an output schema, and no behavioral annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not mention how the simulation is applied, whether it affects the running game, how to revert it, or any constraints (e.g., value ranges for packet_loss). The agent would have to infer all of this, risking misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions latency, jitter, and packet loss but omits offline_mode, which is a key parameter. Since schema coverage is 0% (top-level parameter has no description), the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or defaults. It adds minimal value beyond the schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (inject) and the subject (simulated latency, jitter, packet loss). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like configuration of multiplayer spawners, which are about setup rather than network simulation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any similar tool, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios it fits (e.g., testing network resilience), or when alternative tools (like godot_configure_multiplayer_spawner) might be more appropriate. The description provides zero context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) behavior, but the description adds no additional context. It does not clarify whether the tool creates a new camera node or modifies an existing one, what happens to previous settings, or any side effects. Since annotations are minimal, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure and fails to provide it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is good for brevity, but it under-specifies the tool's capabilities. It lacks essential details about parameter usage, so while not verbose, it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the action but misses critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex: it handles both 2D and 3D cameras, many optional parameters, and has an output schema (which may define return values). Despite this, the description provides only a high-level purpose, leaving out how to differentiate between camera types, which parameters apply to which mode, or any operational details. An agent would need to consult external docs or trial-error to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%—the description mentions no parameters. The schema itself has descriptions for each parameter (e.g., fov, zoom, near), but the description should add meaning beyond that, such as which parameters apply to 2D vs 3D, expected data formats, or combinations. It adds nothing, leaving agents to infer parameter intent solely from the schema, which is inadequate given many optional fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates and configures Camera2D or Camera3D cameras, mentioning both 2D and 3D variants and FOV. This distinguishes it from other configuration tools like godot_configure_environment, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The term 'viewports' is slightly misleading since it deals with camera settings, not viewports directly, but the core purpose is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other configuration tools (e.g., godot_configure_environment, godot_configure_render_settings). It does not state prerequisites, context, or alternatives. An agent has no explicit direction on when this tool is appropriate beyond the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful 2D/3D output distinction, but it misrepresents the input source and never reveals that the operation mutates the active scene by attaching a node at parent_node_path, or that the caller must pre-compute the vertices. No contradiction with the annotations themselves, but material behavioral gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the trailing source clause. Compact and scannable, with no filler; the inaccuracy of the final clause is penalized under other dimensions rather than this one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a scene-mutating creation tool with no helpful annotations, this is thin. It omits that the node attaches to the active scene, that this is a physics-collision helper distinct from CSG or generic node creation, and that the input vertices must be computed by the caller. The presence of an output schema excuses missing return-value documentation, but not these operational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Reported schema_description_coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it adds nothing about points, depth, disabled, node_name, polygon_type, or parent_node_path — and its 'sprite alpha or mesh' wording actively misleads about what the caller must supply. The schema's own property texts are actually thorough, which softens the damage, but the description contributes zero parameter value and misdirects expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a concrete verb and resource — generating CollisionPolygon2D/3D shapes — and the 2D/3D split maps to the polygon_type parameter, distinguishing it from CSG shape tools. However, the clause 'from sprite alpha or mesh' is unsupported by the schema: the only required input is explicit vertex 'points', so a caller would reasonably expect sprite/mesh source parameters that do not exist. The misleading source phrase keeps this below a clean 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. The only implied use case, generating from sprite alpha or mesh, is contradicted by the required 'points' parameter, so an agent cannot infer when to choose this over siblings like godot_create_node or godot_create_csg_shape. Nothing helps route the call correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The tool is a write operation (annotations: readOnlyHint=false) and saves a file via save_path, but the description does not disclose that it writes to disk, whether existing files are overwritten, or that it can optionally assign the theme to a node. Without annotations covering these behaviors, the description carries the burden but does not address them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is efficient, though it could be slightly expanded to add context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested StyleBoxFlatConfig, many optional parameters, required save_path, optional apply_to_node_path), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain how to structure the overrides, what save_path is for, or how the parameters relate, leaving the agent ill-equipped to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% according to context, and the description only vaguely mentions color, font, and stylebox without explaining the structured nature of the parameters (e.g., type-grouped objects, StyleBoxFlatConfig details, the requirement of save_path). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Theme resource') and lists the overrides it supports (color, font, stylebox). However, it does not differentiate from nearby siblings like godot_apply_theme_override or godot_create_material, so it is clear but not uniquely distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it creates a new resource file, when to use it over applying overrides to an existing node, or any prerequisites such as an open scene. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already signal safety. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond a bare restatement of protocol. No contradiction, but no added context either — e.g., it doesn't say queries need an open/valid GDScript file or that it's non-mutating.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short and front-loaded, no padding. But under-specification means the conciseness isn't serving comprehension — a single sentence that doesn't mention the four query types.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite rich schema and an output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing: no mention of query types beyond the schema, no example, no guidance on GDScript constraints. The description alone cannot support correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema well-documents all params (file_path, line, character with defaults, and query_type enum with explanations), so the description has no burden there. However the description adds nothing about how parameters interact — e.g., that symbol_name only applies to 'symbols' or that line/character apply to definition/references/hover. Description contributes zero semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Query LSP files using the Language Server Protocol' is near-tautological — 'LSP' already stands for Language Server Protocol, so the second clause adds nothing. It fails to state that this tool performs semantic queries (symbols, definition, references, hover) against GDScript files, and doesn't differentiate from sibling godot_lsp_rename which also uses LSP.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like godot_lsp_rename, godot_get_node_script_info, or godot_evaluate_expression among the siblings. No mention of valid use cases (e.g., symbol lookup, go-to-definition, hover info) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing effects. It only says 'inject' events, which implies state modification, but doesn't explain side effects, whether inputs affect the actual game state, or how they are delivered. No detail on ordering, timing, or compatibility with running projects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (single sentence) and not overlong, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential behavioral and usage context. It is concise but not effective; the brevity comes at the cost of informational value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, multiple event types, and optional fields, the description is grossly inadequate. It doesn't explain how to simulate a key press, a mouse movement, or a joypad action, nor does it cover return values or side effects. Even with an output schema present, the description leaves an agent guessing about invocation patterns and expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description provides no parameter-level guidance, and schema description coverage is 0%. While the schema itself has detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., event_type, key, action), the description adds no extra meaning or helps disambiguate optional parameters. The mention of event types in the description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of guidance on how to combine parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Inject simulated mouse, keyboard, or joypad events' clearly states the action (inject) and the resource (simulated input events). It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's core function. However, it lacks detail on scope or variations, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other simulate tools like godot_simulate_network_conditions, though the event types are specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be running), the intended scenario (testing, automation), or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
All annotations are false, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fails to mention that baking is a potentially slow, project-modifying operation that generates or overwrites baked lightmap data, and that it depends on prior GI node setup. The verb 'bake' implies data generation, but side effects and performance characteristics are left unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with a front-loaded verb and zero filler words; every word earns its place. It is efficiently structured, though so terse that it leaves behavioral and usage dimensions under-specified — a deficit penalized in those dimensions rather than here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a bake operation with no informative annotations, the absence of usage context, side-effect disclosure, and prerequisite guidance leaves an agent under-equipped. The existence of an output schema mitigates the return-value gap, but the description still omits actionable context about this costly, state-changing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description needed to compensate by explaining bake_mode, save_path, and lightmap_node_path — it explains none of them. The only hint ('lightmap or voxel GI') merely restates what the schema's lightmap_node_path field already says, adding no meaning beyond the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Trigger'), a clear resource ('lightmap or voxel GI baking'), and a scope ('the active scene'), which reads distinctly from siblings like godot_configure_lightmap_gi (configures rather than bakes) and godot_bake_navmesh (bakes a different resource type). However, it never names an alternative outright, so it misses the top tier reserved for explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus godot_configure_lightmap_gi or godot_bake_navmesh, and no mention of prerequisites such as a configured LightmapGI/VoxelGI node being present in the scene. The 'active scene' phrase is the only contextual hint, giving an agent no real routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. The description only says 'Setup', which implies modification but does not mention that the tool can create new AnimationTree nodes, modify existing ones, or optionally save a resource file (as implied by parameters like 'node_path' and 'save_as_resource_path'). This lack of behavioral detail could lead an agent to misuse the tool (e.g., assuming it only works on an existing node or unaware of resource saving). The description is not contradictory, but it is significantly incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action directly. There is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose name already conveys the subject. However, given the tool's complexity, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, which slightly lowers the score from 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex (8 parameters, possible creation vs. reuse, optional resource saving) and has no output schema or annotations to supplement the description. The description only provides a high-level summary and omits critical context such as whether the tool creates a new AnimationTree, requires an existing one, saves resources, or what the return value represents. This is incomplete for an agent to use correctly without diving into the schema details, which may not be immediately accessible at selection time.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the tool description mentions none of the parameters. The rule states that with low coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not. The schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each field (e.g., states, transitions, tree_type), but the description adds nothing about parameters. An agent cannot learn from the description what inputs are needed or what they control, relying solely on the schema. This is a severe gap given the complexity of the configuration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Setup') and targets a specific resource (AnimationTree) with concrete sub-objectives (state machines, blend spaces, transitions). This clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like godot_scaffold_state_machine or godot_create_animation, which could overlap in scope. A 4 is appropriate because the verb+resource is specific but the distinction from alternatives is not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_scaffold_state_machine or godot_create_animation. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
All annotations are false (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so they provide no behavioral signal. The description only says 'attach', implying a mutation but without disclosing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or impact on the scene. With no annotation support, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the core action. This is an ideal length for a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with six parameters (bone_name, scale_offset, position_offset, skeleton_node_path, rotation_offset_deg, attachment_node_name) and an output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain how offsets work, how to choose a skeleton path, or what the result of the operation is. An agent would need to inspect the schema and possibly the documentation to use it correctly. The annotations provide no additional context. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. Although the input schema itself provides per-parameter descriptions (e.g., bone_name, scale_offset), the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already has. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not. Nevertheless, the schema itself is reasonably self-explanatory, so it earns a 2 rather than 1.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('attach'), a resource ('props, weapons, or collision nodes'), and a target ('named Skeleton3D bones'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_configure_physics_joint or godot_generate_ragdoll, which serve different purposes. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. There is no comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description adds only the 'dynamic avoidance' context. It does not disclose whether the tool creates or modifies a node, how existing settings are affected, or any side effects beyond the annotation flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the small amount of information it conveys, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has many nested parameters and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to configure an obstacle, how the parameters interact, or what the output schema represents. The rich schema descriptions compensate partially, but the tool-level context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not mention radius, velocity, vertices, node paths, or avoidance layers, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema's nested descriptions without any high-level guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('NavigationObstacle2D or NavigationObstacle3D'), and adds the scope 'dynamic avoidance,' which distinguishes it from broader navigation tools like godot_create_navigation_region. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_create_node, godot_modify_node, or godot_create_navigation_region. The description implies usage for configuring obstacles but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (all false hints), so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. 'Headlessly' provides some context, but there is no mention of what the tool actually does to the project, whether it modifies files, what success/failure looks like, or any output specifics. The description adds little beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence without unnecessary fluff, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified and does not structure information such as usage, parameters, or outputs. It is minimally concise but not appropriately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with multiple parameters, an output schema, and many test-related siblings, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks any mention of how to specify a test, what formats are accepted, or what the tool returns. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without deep schema inspection and assumptions about behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for each parameter are present, but the tool description itself provides zero parameter context. With 4 parameters and 0% description coverage of them, the description does not compensate. The agent must read the schema to understand what test_path, extra_arguments, etc., mean, which is acceptable but leaves the description lacking added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'execute' and identifies both 'test scenes' and 'unit test runners' as targets, and specifies 'headlessly' as a mode. This makes the tool's basic purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling godot_run_gut_tests, which also runs tests, so it loses a point for lack of differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like godot_run_gut_tests, nor any mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The descriptions do not contradict the annotations: setting a selection is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, which is consistent. The description adds the minor behavioral context that the operation targets the 2D/3D editor viewport, but does not disclose effects such as whether an open scene is required, what happens on invalid paths, or how it interacts with the Scene dock. Note a terminology mismatch: the description says 'viewport' while the schema says the Scene dock, which could mislead.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is brief and front-loaded, but under-specification is not conciseness. It conveys no usage context, effects, or distinctions, so the short length reflects missing information rather than efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a confusable sibling (godot_set_selected_nodes) and two nuanced parameters, this definition omits the distinctions an agent most needs to route correctly. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing when/why and effect coverage leaves the description insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The top-level schema shows 0% coverage and the description adds nothing about node_paths or clear_previous, placing the full burden on the schema. Although the nested SetEditorSelectionInput does describe both parameters (including a useful example), the description compensates not at all and even introduces confusion by describing the target as the viewport while the schema parameter mentions the Scene dock.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('selected nodes') scoped to the 2D/3D editor viewport, so the core purpose is legible. However, it does nothing to distinguish from the sibling godot_set_selected_nodes, which sounds almost identical, nor from godot_focus_node. An agent cannot tell which selection-related tool to pick from this text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is offered on when to use this tool over godot_set_selected_nodes, godot_focus_node, or godot_get_selected_nodes. The description gives neither context, exclusions, nor alternatives, forcing the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'configure', which weakly implies a mutation but does not disclose overwrite behavior, side effects, or required scene structure. Since the annotations do not mark it as readOnly and destructiveHint is false, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is concise. However, it is so sparse for a multi-parameter configuration tool that it crosses from concise into under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutating setup tool with several tuning parameters and no readOnlyHint, yet the description omits whether it creates or overwrites a SkeletonIK3D node, what scene structure is required, and how magnet/target options interact. The output schema may cover return values, but the actual setup behavior is largely implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description needed to compensate for missing parameter meaning, but it only mentions target nodes and magnet vectors. It does not explain the required root_bone and tip_bone chain semantics, nor the tuning parameters like interpolation, iterations, or min_distance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a concrete action and resource: 'Configure SkeletonIK3D chains', and it names the key features involved (target nodes, magnet vectors). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like godot_inspect_skeleton or godot_configure_bone_attachment, though the create-vs-modify intent is left implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as an existing Skeleton3D node. It simply states the operation without context, exclusions, or routing to a different tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists configuration actions but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether the bus layout is saved, whether missing buses are created by default, or how renaming is supposed to work. Annotations indicate a non-read-only mutation but provide no behavioral detail, so the description carries too little transparency for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with the key actions front-loaded and no filler. It earns conciseness points, though the brevity does leave semantic gaps that other dimensions penalize.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's multiple optional parameters, mutation side effects, and related sibling tools, the one-line description is incomplete. It never mentions volume configuration, effect bypassing, layout saving, or when to create vs. configure a bus, so an agent would need to infer too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's verbs roughly map to some parameters (mute, solo, route), but it omits volume_db, volume_linear, bypass_effects, save_layout_path, and create_if_missing. It also advertises 'rename' even though the input schema has no parameter that supplies a new bus name, which is misleading rather than helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource ('AudioServer buses') and concrete verbs ('Add, rename, mute, solo, or route'), so the core purpose is immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from closely related siblings like godot_set_bus_effect or godot_get_audio_layout, but the action verbs give enough direction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Related tools such as godot_set_bus_effect and godot_get_audio_layout exist, but the description never mentions when this tool is preferred or when another audio-bus tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutating behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects (e.g., saving to project.godot), the default behavior of replace_existing, or any irreversibility concerns. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich the agent's understanding of runtime behavior beyond the annotations themselves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the core function. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is as concise as possible while remaining informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a configuration tool with side effects (e.g., potentially saving to project settings, modifying bindings), this description is incomplete. It does not mention the scope of changes (e.g., per-action events), the ability to remove actions, or any cautionary notes about overwriting existing configurations. The annotation and schema provide some context, but the description leaves important behavioral aspects unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description offers zero insight into the parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%. While the JSON Schema contains detailed property descriptions, the tool description itself does not compensate for the low coverage. Given the parameter schema is complex (nested objects, multiple event types, defaults), the lack of any description-level parameter guidance is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb phrase 'Add, remove, or modify' and clearly identifies the resource ('input actions and event bindings'). It is not a tautology and gives a clear sense of the operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'godot_get_input_actions' or 'godot_simulate_input' beyond the obvious configurational intent, so it doesn't achieve the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about typical use cases, and no mention of related tools. It simply states what the tool does without any hint of when it is appropriate or how it differs from siblings. It is not misleading, but it is entirely free of usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false/neutral and provide no safety profile, and the description does not disclose side effects, whether settings are overwritten or merged, or whether the operation is reversible. For a configuration/mutation tool, more behavioral context is needed beyond the bare action word 'configure'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short, though at the cost of behavioral and contextual detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has multiple nested configuration fields and an output schema, but the description omits which node it targets, how margins interact with cross-fading, and what the result looks like. The schema carries the parameter details, but the description itself is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions visibility ranges and fade modes, loosely mapping to some parameters, but it adds little meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. With schema description coverage at 0%, it does not compensate for the richer parameter semantics in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete action ('Configure') and the LOD-specific resource, enumerating visibility ranges, distance thresholds, and cross-fade modes. Among the many godot_configure_* siblings, this clearly identifies the LOD manager as the target. It leaves the target node type implicit, but the tool name and schema fill that gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_configure_particles or godot_configure_render_settings, nor are prerequisites or conditions stated. The description explains what the tool does but not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description carries the burden of explaining the actual mutation behavior. It says joints are 'created and configured', but does not disclose that a joint node is likely added to the scene tree and bound to two physics bodies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, scannable sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and enumerates types efficiently, though it is so short that it leaves out guidance that would increase usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the detailed input schema and output schema, the description is too thin to route an agent among dozens of godot_* siblings. It fails to mention 2D joint support, the requirement for two body node paths, effect on the scene tree, or when this tool is the right choice compared with node mutation utilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description gives human-readable joint names that map loosely to joint_type values, but it exposes none of the eight parameters that affect invocation, such as node_a_path, node_b_path, position, rotation, and parameters. The '3D' qualifier also conflicts with the schema's supported 2D joint types like pin_2d, groove_2d, and damped_spring_2d.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb-resource combination, 'create and configure physics joints', and lists the main 3D joint types (Pin, Hinge, Slider, ConeTwist, 6DOF). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from generic scene-construction tools like godot_create_node or godot_modify_node, and the '3D' qualifier omits the 2D joint types supported by the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites such as existing node_a/node_b physics bodies, nor does it clarify when this tool should be preferred over manually creating or modifying joint nodes via other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It only says 'Add,' which implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether the active scene is mutated, whether the change persists without saving, or whether the TileSet is referenced or copied. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it very easy to parse. However, its brevity comes at the expense of necessary usage and prerequisite context, so it is not maximally appropriate in size.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
In a library with over a hundred tools, one sentence is insufficient. It lacks guidance on scene prerequisites, relationship to godot_set_tilemap_cells, side effects on the active scene, and whether the TileSet binding is optional. An output schema may cover return values, but the invocation context is still incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description adds no meaning for name, tile_set_path, or parent_node_path beyond the schema. With reported schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate but does not; the only hint is 'TileSet binding,' which doesn't explain the optionality or path semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('TileMapLayer node') and adds the distinguishing qualifier 'with TileSet binding.' This separates it from generic node creation and from tilemap cell manipulation, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus godot_create_node, godot_instantiate_scene, or godot_set_tilemap_cells. It also omits prerequisites such as whether a scene must be open or whether the TileSet binding is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only indicate this is not a read-only, non-idempotent, and not-destructive operation; the description adds little beyond naming the action kinds. It does not mention that typing may modify node text, that clear_before_type may wipe existing content, that drag/drop needs viewport coordinates, or that interactions can change application state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler and the main action verbs are front-loaded. It is not penalized heavily for brevity here, but it loses a point because it gives an informal action label instead of the actual schema vocabulary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that supports multiple interaction modes, coordinate-based drag/scroll, and possible text mutation, this description is too thin to be a complete guide. It does not mention runtime state effects, required node type, coordinate system, or differences from sibling tools. The output schema helps with return values, but the broader usage context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description does almost nothing to explain parameters such as node_path, text, scroll_delta, drag_to_position, or action values. It also uses the label 'drag_to' while the schema action is named 'drag_and_drop', which could create ambiguity for an agent choosing parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs interaction actions (click, type_text, drag_to, scroll) on a located node, so an agent can understand the basic purpose. It is not a full match to the schema's action set, and it does not distinguish itself from related node tools, but the core verb and resource are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like godot_simulate_input, godot_focus_node, or godot_set_editor_selection. The phrase 'on a located node' only implies a node should already exist, but it does not explicitly state prerequisites, workflow order, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Trigger reimport' without explaining side effects, such as whether the .import file is overwritten or whether the asset must be present. This is minimal transparency for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is concise and directly states the purpose, though it could be enhanced with a brief usage note without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is inadequate for a tool performing a potentially modifying action. It lacks prerequisites, error conditions, an explanation of preset vs. custom_params, and how this relates to other import tools. Even with an output schema (implied), the entry conditions and effects are not disclosed, leaving an agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% per context signals, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'custom import parameters' but does not specify the parameters (asset_path, preset, custom_params) or their semantics beyond the vague phrase. The schema itself provides some descriptions, but the tool description adds no value, failing to bridge the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'reimport' and resource 'asset files' are specific, and the mention of 'custom import parameters' adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like godot_configure_gltf_import or godot_audit_assets, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_configure_gltf_import or editing import settings directly. It also does not mention prerequisites like the asset existing or the project being open, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide no safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint are all false/neutral), so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'construct nodes' and does not disclose that files may be generated, the scene may be modified, or whether repeated calls overwrite existing content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, and the key concept 'finite state machine' is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but as a structure it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a code-generation and scene-modification tool with moderate complexity, yet the description omits side effects, prerequisites, and potential failure modes. The output schema helps with return values, but the description is too thin for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in the right context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description should compensate, but it adds no meaning for states, target_dir, machine_name, parent_node_path, or generate_node_hierarchy. The nested schema does contain property descriptions, but the tool description itself does not help an agent understand parameter selection or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Construct') with a specific artifact ('modular hierarchical finite state machine nodes'), which clearly conveys the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from generic node-creation or script-creation tools by naming state machines, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_create_node, godot_create_script, or godot_configure_animation_tree. No prerequisites like requiring an active scene or an intended directory are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description only needs to clarify the physical behavior; the phrase 'physics sweep test' gives some. However, it does not add the qualitative behavior of the results (e.g., how hits are returned or that omitting a motion vector turns the sweep into a pure overlap test), leaving the agent without meaningful context about the outcome.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise and readable, but it is also under-specified: it largely restates the tool name 'cast_shape' with the additional gloss 'sweep test in physics space'. It is appropriately short, though not genuinely informative on its own.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the read-only annotations, a rich input step, and the existence of an output, the description meets the minimum viability but fails to close the most important gap — telling the agent why this tool exists among physics siblings like godot_cast_ray_3d. It also does not mention the stationary-overlap behavior when motion is omitted, which the schema communicates but the description should echo.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage for the description text is 0%, and the description names none of the six key inputs (origin, motion, shape_type, shape_params, max_results, collision_mask). Since coverage is far below the 50% threshold, the description bears the burden of explaining parameters and does not; the input schema itself does contain per-field descriptions, which partially rescues the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform'), the resource ('3D shapecast'), and the domain ('physics space'), adding the parenthetical '(sweep test)' to clarify what a shapecast means. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling godot_cast_ray_3d beyond the obvious name difference, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use a cast shape instead of a ray cast, and no mention of when to provide a motion vector versus leaving it null for a stationary overlap test. The agent must infer the selection logic and invocation pattern entirely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, providing no meaningful safety or behavioral signals. The description only says 'configure,' which suggests side effects but doesn't disclose whether nodes are created, modified, or baked, nor any access requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with substantial configuration impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and resource types. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's complexity (many parameters, multiple GI types), the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain prerequisites, side effects, expected scene state, or how it relates to baking workflows. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters, and schema description coverage is 0% (the top-level 'params' parameter has no description). While the nested schema properties have useful descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to infer how to map high-level intent to the 'params' object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action (Configure) and a specific resource (3D GI pipelines) with concrete examples (LightmapGI, VoxelGI, ReflectionProbe). This distinguishes it from many unrelated siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from godot_bake_lightmaps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_bake_lightmaps or godot_configure_environment. The description implies configuration but doesn't state prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does not disclose whether settings persist, require an existing XROrigin3D, reinitialize the runtime, or affect rendering behavior beyond omitting 'passthrough/foveation.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence that front-loades the tool's core domain with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the high-level purpose it declares.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five nested parameters and XR-specific setup concerns, a one-line description is minimal. It does not state prerequisites, expected scene state, whether OpenXR must be initialized, or how this relates to an existing XR rig, so an agent is left with significant inference burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it only names passthrough and foveated rendering. It does not clarify xr_origin_path, reference_space, dynamic_foveation, or foveated_rendering_level behavior beyond what the nested schema already lists, making the description's marginal contribution minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource, 'OpenXR passthrough mode and foveated rendering,' and uses the verb 'configure,' which makes the tool's domain clear among many configure_* siblings. It differentiates from godot_setup_xr_rig by focusing on passthrough/foveation rather than rig creation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only says what the tool configures; it gives no guidance on when to use it over alternatives like godot_setup_xr_rig or godot_configure_render_settings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false, idempotentHint:false) are all neutral/false, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Yet it omits critical behavior: the persist parameter defaults to true, meaning a signal connection silently serializes into the .tscn file on disk. It also fails to mention one_shot auto-disconnection or the disconnect toggle that inverts the entire operation. The description merely restates the mechanism without surfacing side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded English sentence that states the intent in the first word: 'Connect.' Zero filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the object of the action (signal) is front and center. It earns its place as an at-a-glance summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters and a divergent behavior-switch (disconnect), this description is far too thin. It doesn't warn that persist:true mutates the .tscn file despite destructiveHint:false, and it doesn't point to siblings like godot_get_signal_connections for pre-verification. The existing output schema covers the return type, so that's not a concern, but the missing side-effect caveat and verification flow leave an agent flying blind.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate — it doesn't. It references the four core parameters (signal_name, source_node_path, target_node_path, method_name) through prose, but entirely omits the four boolean toggles (persist, deferred, one_shot, disconnect). The important detail that persist:true writes to the scene file is buried only in the schema, not surfaced in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Connect a signal from a source node to a target node method.' It clearly captures directionality (source→target) and distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like godot_get_signal_connections or godot_get_node_signals. However, it never names or alludes to those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb 'connect' vs 'get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus godot_get_signal_connections (e.g., to verify an existing connection before connecting) or godot_get_node_signals (to discover available signals). There is no mention of prerequisites, like needing an open scene or valid paths, nor any hint about double-connect behavior. The single-sentence description provides zero strategic context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) but do not disclose further behavioral traits. The description adds no extra context such as overwrite behavior, persistence via save_path, or side effects on the scene. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes minimally beyond what the schema already exposes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core action without wasting words. It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex, with nested structures for tracks and keyframes, multiple enum types, and optional save/insert paths. The description only provides a terse overview and does not explain how to structure the input, when to use it, or what the expected outcome is. Despite a rich schema and output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for the agent to discover.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the tool description does not explain any parameters. Although the schema itself contains detailed descriptions for fields like tracks, keyframes, and save_path, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage. It offers no additional semantic meaning or usage guidance for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Create or modify tracks and keyframes in an AnimationPlayer.' It names a specific resource (AnimationPlayer) and action (create/modify tracks and keyframes), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from other animation-related tools like godot_configure_animation_tree, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or recommend this tool over others like godot_configure_animation_tree. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With 0% schema review coverage, the description says 'safely' — a single word bearing the huge load of a serious claim about side effects and sandboxing that remains unsubstantiated. It does not tell you whether the expression can mutate the scene tree, what gets returned, or what the 'safety' boundary really is. The description does not use the annotation block leading to the API user; a single sentence is a half-sheet of behavioral floor for an escape hatch that needs a contract.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One eight-word sentence does the work, front-loading the most informative element. It is a model of restraint, no filler; it does not spend a single word that is not earned. The only reason not to give a 5 is that a definition this short could spend a little more time and still be concise, but that is a mountaineer's route.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema and rich parameter metadata carry a lot of the expressiveness, so the description does not have to describe the return behavior in depth — the schema does not cover error handling, side effects, or the safety model, and it should say something about them. On a balance for a currently neutral feature with a capable authoring story this covers it, but the heaviest user questions (is it safe? does it mutate?) go unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema tediously documents all the parameters with examples and use cases for expression, so described behavior is the strongest in the suite. The description adds no value to parameter understanding: it does not mention node_path, input_variables, or the wrapping params object, even though the given 0% coverage should put the burden of supplying semantic context on it. On its own the schema anchors the parameter model / the description adds nothing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a single, precise verb-object pair ('Evaluate ... expression') that names the resource (arbitrary GDScript expression) and scopes it with 'at runtime', which a knowledgeable user can distinguish from a sibling like validate_script. It is terse, but every word adds a nuance: it does not just be a tool name, and it is abundantly clear what it does. It earns top marks by adding the qualification 'safely at runtime' where peers that just repeat the identifier are common. The word 'arbitrary' and the example-rich schema make up for the lack of a dedicated caveat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage signal is 'safely at runtime', which is implicit at best; it does not say when to use this versus the many siblings or when to prefer something like validate_script or LSP_Query. There is no guidance that this is an escape hatch versus a sandboxed alternative, and no caveat that the user should prefer this over a typed sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide no safety information, and the description adds little beyond 'via CLI'. It does not disclose that this writes a file to output_path, may require configured export presets, or that debug builds are separate. The agent gets minimal warning about the operation's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly written sentence with no redundant words. The core action is front-loaded, and the sentence earns its space. There is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters and low schema coverage, the description is far too sparse. It fails to mention the output_path parameter, the debug flag, or any prerequisites like having export_presets.cfg configured. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at 'target preset' for preset_name and 'binary' for output, but completely omits output_path and debug semantics. An agent would not know the roles of each parameter from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (export), the resource (project binary), and how it's done (via CLI). It is specific enough to distinguish from running the project or getting presets, though it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_run_project or godot_get_export_presets. The description only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer when it applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose whether baking is synchronous or asynchronous, whether existing navigation meshes are overwritten, or whether any file saving occurs. Annotations already convey read/write and destructive hints, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'trigger'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the core verb and resource, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a complex navigation-mesh baking workflow and multiple optional parameters, this description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, side effects, async behavior, and the role of the optional save path, leaving the agent to infer critical operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the underlying schema provides detailed descriptions for all fields such as node_path, cell_size, on_thread, and save_navmesh_path. Since the schema carries the explanatory burden, the missing parameter info in the description is acceptable but not exemplary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Trigger navigation mesh baking') and a concrete resource ('NavigationRegion'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like creating or configuring navigation regions. It could be more explicit about 2D vs 3D, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an existing NavigationRegion or active scene. It only describes what happens, not the context in which it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose whether the original TileSet resource gets modified or overwritten, when save_path is honored, or what side effects configuration has on existing terrain data. Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond that flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one economical sentence with zero filler, no redundancy, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. It earns its place without noise, though it trades away some useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a resource-modifying tool with a nested TileSet path, mode, terrain list, terrain set index, peering bits, and optional save destination, this description is too thin. The output schema covers return structure but does not compensate for the missing side effects and tool-selection guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides loose orientation by mapping to the main parameter groups: terrain_set, mode, and tile_peering_bits. However, the detailed parameter semantics, required tileset_path, defaults, and examples are all delegated to the schema rather than synthesized into the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a concrete action (configure) on a concrete resource (TileSet) and enumerates the covered topics: terrain sets, terrain modes, and auto-tiling. It is enough to separate it from tilemap-layer and tile-cell tools, although it relies heavily on TileSet-specific terminology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as tilemap setup or cell-modification tools. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and high-level wording, so an agent gets little help deciding between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only, but the description does not disclose side effects such as creating or overwriting .tres files or attaching materials to nodes. With no detailed annotation coverage, the description should state persistence and assignment behavior, but it only says 'Create'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits valuable behavioral and parameter context, so brevity becomes a limitation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A tool with multiple material types, an inline shader code option, a shader path option, and an optional node assignment needs significantly more guidance. The one-line description is insufficient for an agent to correctly create a ShaderMaterial or to know what the side effects of creating a material are.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists material types, which maps to the material_type parameter, but does not explain shader_code vs shader_path, properties, material_path, or assign_to_node_path. The schema has descriptions for nested properties, but the tool description itself adds no parameter guidance beyond repeating the type list.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a concrete action, 'Create', and a specific resource class ('StandardMaterial3D, ORMMaterial3D, ShaderMaterial, or CanvasItemMaterial'). It distinguishes the tool from nearby creation tools like godot_create_shader by explicitly enumerating supported material types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as godot_create_shader, godot_set_shader_param, or godot_apply_theme_override. It simply states what it creates, with no mention of selection conditions or use cases for the different material types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'save to disk,' consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but fails to disclose other behaviors such as whether it opens the scene in the editor (controlled by open_in_editor), whether it can overwrite existing files, or if it creates directories. Annotations provide only minimal safety hints, and the description adds little beyond the obvious write action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and side effects. It omits critical usage context such as overwriting, opening the editor, and differentiating from scene-modification tools. Although an output schema exists, real-world scenarios (e.g., whether to use this vs. godot_create_node) are not addressed, leaving gaps for an agent to reason about.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description contains no parameter information at all, and schema description coverage is reported as 0%, meaning the description does not compensate for the schema. With multiple parameters (root_name, root_type, properties, scene_path, open_in_editor, response_format), an agent must rely entirely on the schema, which is not enhanced. The description fails to explain how parameters relate to the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a brand new scene file with root node and save to disk,' which identifies a clear verb, resource, and key details. This differentiates it from sibling tools like godot_open_scene, godot_instantiate_scene, and godot_create_node, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it creates a new file (vs. modifying existing scenes), does not address overwriting behavior, and provides no exclusions or comparisons with siblings. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'active scene' as a context but does not disclose side effects beyond the implied mutation (creating an instance). It does not note whether the operation is destructive, requires saving, or what happens if the source_path is invalid or the scene is unsaved. Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint: false, but no explanation given), so the description carries the burden and under-delivers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It loses one point for omitting any usage or behavioral detail that would help an agent, but it is efficient and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema is rich and covers parameters in detail, but the description lacks contextual guidance about the tool's side effects (modifying the active scene) or when a user might want to use save_as_scene_path. For a moderately complex tool, the description is a minimal but acceptable overview.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is rich and covers all parameter meanings (types, defaults, descriptions) with 100% coverage. The description itself adds nothing beyond the tool's general purpose, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness—baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Instantiate') with a clear object ('3D model asset') and destination ('into the active scene'). It distinguishes this as a creation tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also operate on the scene tree (e.g., godot_create_node or godot_add_child).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., an active scene must be open), or situations where it is not appropriate. The description is purely descriptive with no routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a state-mutating operation, and destructiveHint=false, indicating it is non-destructive. The description adds minimal context beyond this — it notes the action happens 'in the Godot Editor workspace', implying a workspace state change, but does not disclose what happens on open (e.g., whether it replaces the current scene, prompts about unsaved changes, or fails on missing paths). With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description adds some but not rich context, meriting a 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler — every word earns its place. It is efficient and readable. It is not penalized as under-specification here since brevity is assessed separately from completeness on other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating editor operation, the description is thin: it omits behavioral effects on the current workspace, error/edge-case handling, and the role of the response_format output schema. Although an output schema exists, the description provides no operational context an agent would need to reliably invoke the tool and interpret the outcome, leaving the definition incomplete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported at 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. The description only implies scene_path should be a .tscn resource, which is a minor addition. It offers nothing about the response_format parameter or path requirements. Given low schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate for the undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Open') with a concrete resource ('scene file (.tscn)') and target ('Godot Editor workspace'), making the operation clear. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools (godot_create_scene, godot_instantiate_scene, godot_save_scene), but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for an agent to distinguish 'open existing scene' from create/instantiate/save operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as godot_create_scene, godot_instantiate_scene, godot_save_scene, or godot_diff_scene. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the scene must already exist as a project resource) or exclusions. An agent must infer the appropriate scenario from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds little beyond the annotations: it says 'capture test results' but does not explain potential side effects of executing test scripts, how tests are discovered, whether a GUT plugin is required, or what meaningful difference exists beyond the default readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and contains no filler or repetition. It states the core action and outcome in a single efficient sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that runs GUT tests and can produce side effects, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, expected project state, how it differs from godot_run_tests, and how the agent should choose between directory-wide and single-file test execution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description contributes no parameter-level explanation, but the input schema documents prefix, test_dir, test_file, extra_args, and config_file with defaults and examples. Since the schema carries the parameter meaning, this is an adequate but not exceptional baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Execute GUT test suites and capture test results.' It distinguishes the tool from generic test runners like godot_run_tests by naming GUT specifically, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus godot_run_tests, when to use godot_generate_gut_test, or what prerequisites apply. The only implied use case is 'run GUT tests,' which an agent could already infer from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide little help: readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint are all false, leaving the description to carry the burden. The description is minimal and does not disclose that undo is not idempotent, may have side effects on the editor state, or that it only works in the editor context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, grammatically clean sentence that states the action and scope. No filler or redundancy. Front-loads the key verb 'trigger' and names the specific editor context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values aren't the issue. However, the description omits important contextual details such as editor-only availability, the relationship with godot_redo, and potential errors when no undo history exists. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% — the tool description does not mention history_id at all. While the JSON schema does provide a description for the parameter ('Optional history ID to undo on...'), the tool description fails to compensate for the low coverage, and an agent reading only the description would not know the parameter exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'triggers undo' on the 'active Godot Editor undo/redo manager' — a specific verb and resource. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling godot_redo, so it doesn't fully clarify the undo/redo pairing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_redo, nor any mention of preconditions (e.g., whether an undo history must exist, or if it must be called from the editor). The reader must infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the annotations: readOnlyHint=false implies mutation, and 'Construct' expresses that. It adds a bit of context by limiting the tool to CSG shapes, but it still does not mention side effects like scene-tree insertion, repeated-call duplicates, or how boolean operations apply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and examples make the purpose obvious. The minor wording repetition ('Construct Constructive') is a small defect, but the length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 12-property CSG tool with an output schema and annotations covering the mutation profile, the schema can carry much of the invocation burden. However, the description does not provide enough scene/usage context or sibling differentiation for an agent to confidently pick it among many Godot creation tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The free-text description only hints at shape_type through examples (CSGBox, CSGSphere, etc.) and says nothing about size, height, radius, position, operation, parent_path, or rotation. With the reported 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a specific verb, 'Construct', and names a concrete resource type: Constructive Solid Geometry shapes, with CSGBox and CSGSphere as examples. This distinguishes it from generic node/procedural-mesh tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling creation tools, no prerequisites such as an active scene or parent node, and no note about limitations. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds that the diff is 'structural', which is a useful behavioral distinction (not just textual diff). However, it does not disclose details like whether it requires the scene to be saved or if it reads from memory, though the schema partially covers this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the word 'structural' adds specificity without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too terse for a tool with two distinct modes (comparing against the live edited scene vs. a file-to-file comparison). It misleadingly says 'two scene files' when the default mode compares the current scene with a file on disk. The output schema exists but the description does not clarify what a 'structural diff' includes or how the result is presented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for both parameters are thorough (covering defaults and purpose), but the signal reports 0% schema coverage, meaning the tool description must compensate. The description makes no mention of parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. It adds no value beyond the schema and fails to help when the schema is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Compare'), resource ('two scene files'), and output ('structural diffs'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like save/open/modify, though it doesn't explicitly name the two operating modes (live vs file-to-file) that the schema reveals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a simple visual difference is needed vs. a scripted diff). The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage from the name, but the criterion expects explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description clarifies that the operation is a non-read-only UI workspace change. It does not disclose deeper side effects, such as whether other layout settings are reset or whether the change persists, but those are less critical for this simple editor-UI tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one tight sentence with an active verb and no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple UI layout tool, though slightly underspecified given three optional parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The operation itself is low-risk and simple, and the input schema provides detailed parameter descriptions, so the one-liner is minimally viable. However, the description never notes that all parameters are optional or that it can open a scene and toggle distraction-free mode, and it does not point to godot_get_editor_layout for reading the current layout.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate: active_scene_path and distraction_free_mode are not mentioned in the natural-language description at all. The phrase 'dock arrangements' is vague and does not clearly map to the three distinct optional parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb ('Switch') and resource ('editor main screen/dock arrangements'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like godot_get_editor_layout. It is less complete than the title suggests, though, because the description does not mention the active scene or distraction-free mode that the parameters actually control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention that godot_get_editor_layout is the read-oriented counterpart, nor does it indicate this tool should be used only when the user wants to change the editor UI state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, so a mutation is expected; the description's 'Enable/disable' explicitly communicates a state-changing operation. However, it does not disclose whether the debug mode persists across sessions, affects only the editor or runtime preview, or what null vs. false means for each toggle. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no filler, and the core verb+object is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a toggle operation, even though brevity sacrifices contextual details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four optional parameters and a family of related debug tools, the description is too minimal. It doesn't mention the navigation/path overlays or collision color configuration, nor the relationship to sibling tools like godot_draw_debug_shapes or godot_clear_debug_shapes. An output schema exists, but the tool description alone leaves an agent uncertain about the full scope and semantics of the parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% — the description mentions no parameters. The schema's property descriptions cover visible_paths, visible_navigation, collision_debug_color, and visible_collision_shapes, but the description itself adds no semantics and doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, nor does it clarify null/default behavior or how multiple toggles interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Enable/disable') and a specific subject ('visual physics collision shape debugging'), which conveys the tool's core function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from related siblings like godot_draw_debug_shapes or godot_clear_debug_shapes, and the parameter set (visible_navigation, visible_paths) extends beyond 'collision shape' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_draw_debug_shapes, godot_clear_debug_shapes, or godot_configure_render_settings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios are mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only state this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description's 'place or clear' phrasing adds genuine behavioral signal by disclosing dual paint/erase semantics, which helps an agent understand that clearing cells is within scope. However, it stops short of disclosing meaningful in-scope behaviors implicitly enabled by the schema, such as the 'set source_id to -1 to erase' convention or the side effect of clear_before_paint wiping existing cells, so the disclosure feels incomplete for a batch mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, grammatical, front-loaded imperative sentence with zero filler words. 'Place or clear' immediately leads, followed by the target resource. Every word carries meaning: 'coordinate grid' disambiguates from world-space positioning, and the dual-verb construction is information-dense without ever being verbose. It is appropriately sized to be read in a single glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a nested TileCell entity, a batch cells array, and a clear_before_paint flag with significant side effects, a single sentence leaves meaningful gaps. The description never hints at batch semantics, the destructive potential of clear_before_paint, error behaviors, or how this relates to the sibling godot_get_tilemap_cells for verification workflows. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the operational gaps remain material for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description, at 'Place or clear tiles on a TileMapLayer coordinate grid', explains none of the tool's parameters—node_path, cells, clear_before_paint, or the nested TileCell fields. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the gap; the well-documented inline schema is what keeps this from being a 1. It does indirectly hint at the place-vs-clear distinction reflected in source_id semantics, but that linkage is not drawn for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
'Place or clear tiles on a TileMapLayer coordinate grid' pairs specific verbs ('place or clear') with a clear resource ('tiles on a TileMapLayer coordinate grid'). It implies both paint and erase modes and situates the operation within the Godot tilemap domain, distinguishing it from siblings like godot_get_tilemap_cells and godot_create_tilemap_layer by contrasting set vs. get/create operations, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to reach for this tool instead of godot_get_tilemap_cells, no prerequisite about having an active TileMapLayer node selected, and no note about the schema's batch-oriented design being preferable for multi-cell updates. The only hint of usage is that it involves painting or erasing tiles, which leaves the agent to infer all context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds little beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive by default, the description does not clarify the side effects (e.g., whether the override is permanent, how it affects the scene tree, or if it triggers a re-render). The word 'apply' implies modification, but no additional behavioral detail is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose without redundancy. It is well-structured and immediately understandable, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description is clear enough for a simple operation, it does not mention return values or persistence (e.g., whether the override saves with the scene). Since the schema covers parameters and annotations cover basic safety, the description is complete for basic invocation but lacks context for edge cases or expected outcomes beyond the operation itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (node_path, override_type, item_name, value), including type expectations based on the override type. The overall description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already covers, so it receives the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply theme override'), the target ('Control node'), and the context ('active scene'). It distinguishes this tool from broader theme operations like godot_create_theme by specifying a direct per-node override, though it does not enumerate the override types (which are covered in the schema).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative approaches (e.g., creating a theme resource, setting a global theme, or using the LSP for node property changes). It does not mention prerequisites or more suitable contexts, so an agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed by structured metadata. The description adds the kind of assertions that can be performed, but doesn't mention what happens when an assertion fails or whether the check is synchronous. This is a modest addition beyond the annotations, hence a 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or repetition. Every word adds a meaningful assertion category, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the available annotations, output schema, and schema-provided parameter descriptions, the description is adequate but bare. It names the scope of assertions yet leaves out what 'bounds' means, whether screenshots or waits are involved, and how failure is surfaced. These missing details keep it from being fully complete but still slightly above the minimum viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, yet the description does not explain the node_path parameter or the structure/keys of the assertions dictionary. The list of 'properties, visibility, disabled state, or bounds' is only a partial sample of possible assertion keys and does not compensate for the missing parameter-level guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Assert') and a clear resource (node state), and lists concrete categories: properties, visibility, disabled state, and bounds. This distinguishes it from get/modify/delete siblings at a high level, though it does not explicitly contrast with a sibling by name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusionary conditions, and no reference to related tools such as godot_get_node or godot_modify_node. The only cue is the term 'Assert', which leaves usage decisions to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the destructive nature. The description adds 'quarantine' as an alternative, which is a behavioral nuance, and mentions 'unreferenced and orphaned' but does not explain the dry-run safety net or the default behavior. With annotations covering the destructive flag, the added context is moderately useful but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it omits essential safety context, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. It earns a high score for brevity and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters including a dry_run safety switch and a quarantine option, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that dry_run defaults to true, that file_paths can be specific or all, or that quarantine_folder offers a non-destructive alternative. An agent cannot call this safely without reading the schema. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing usage guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters, and schema coverage is 0% from the description's perspective. The schema itself has detailed descriptions for dry_run, file_paths, and quarantine_folder, but the tool description adds zero value in explaining these. It does not compensate for the low coverage by highlighting the safety implications of dry_run or the role of quarantine_folder.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('remove or quarantine') and resource ('unreferenced and orphaned asset files'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like godot_audit_assets (which likely only audits) but does not explicitly name the sibling; the action of removal sets it apart. Slightly under the top because it doesn't mention the audit-only alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a destructive cleanup action but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. godot_audit_assets or godot_audit_orphan_nodes. It does not mention that dry_run defaults to true or that quarantine is an alternative to deletion. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'remove'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds modest value by identifying what is touched (synced properties and replication intervals), but it does not disclose whether this overwrites existing configuration, how multiple calls interact, or whether the changes take effect immediately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single active sentence with no filler or repetition, and the main verb 'Configure' is front-loaded. It is highly compact, though it is so terse that some clarity is sacrificed; it earns the format but not a perfect score because it omits the node context outright.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the schema is detailed and an output schema exists, the tool description does not mention that the changes apply to a MultiplayerSynchronizer node or that it manipulates SceneReplicationConfig. It also fails to distinguish itself from the many sibling configure_* tools. For a networked-interaction configuration tool, this one-line description leaves essential context to guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema itself provides comprehensive descriptions for fields like synchronizer_node_path, properties, clear_properties, replication_interval, and visibility_update_mode. The tool description only loosely echoes 'properties' and 'replication intervals' without adding any constraining detail, so it contributes no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action as 'Configure' and names the target areas: 'synced properties' and 'replication intervals'. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose statement that points toward a MultiplayerSynchronizer. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling 'godot_configure_multiplayer_spawner', so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_configure_multiplayer_spawner, nor any prerequisites or selection conditions. The description only states what the tool does, not when or why to choose it, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate this is not a read-only operation, and the description adds the useful side effect of generating a matching material. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as file overwriting, validation of code, or what happens when the material path is omitted. More transparency would be possible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It captures the essential purpose and the key side-effect without restating schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The definition is acceptable for a tool whose schema is rich, but it still leaves out guidance on when to use it relative to material-only or shader-validation tools. For a complex tool with several optional parameters and default behaviors, a little more context would improve the overall completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The free-text description doesn't explain any of the parameters, and the context indicates schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry more parameter meaning. It does not clarify how path, shader_type, code, create_material, or material_save_path interact, leaving the value of 'matching material' as the only parameter-related hint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly names a specific verb (create), a specific resource (custom Godot shader .gdshader), and a notable side effect (matching material). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like godot_create_material or godot_validate_shader.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say, for example, to use godot_create_material when only a material is needed or godot_validate_shader when the goal is validation. The usage context is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and offer no behavioral context. The description adds little beyond the word 'Scaffold' — it doesn't disclose whether an existing target file gets overwritten, what happens if GUT isn't installed, or whether the generated test is auto-run or merely created. For a file-writing tool this is a notable gap, though there's no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clear sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and target are all front-loaded and immediately actionable. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema contents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is structurally simple with three documented parameters and an output schema present. However, for a scaffolding/write operation, an agent would benefit from knowing the overwrite behavior, dependency on the GUT addon, and whether the generated file is placed in a test directory convention. These gaps keep it from being fully complete, though the simplicity and existing schema prevent it from being inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with useful descriptions (path to script, destination path, optional method list). Despite the 0% coverage signal, the visible schema carries the descriptive load. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Scaffold') with a clear resource ('GUT test script') and target ('class or script'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling godot_run_gut_tests, which executes tests rather than generating them, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is unambiguous and identifiable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_run_gut_tests, godot_create_script, or godot_validate_script. No prerequisites (e.g., GUT must be installed as an addon) or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the tool reads from the project.godot file and which categories of settings can be expected. This is a small but real addition; there is no deeper disclosure of behavior such as what happens when no section filter is given, but the annotations carry most of the weight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, zero waste: the verb and resource come first, and the parenthetical adds informative examples without padding. The description earns its place and remains perfectly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with rich annotations, well-documented parameters, and a existing output schema, the description is largely sufficient for safe invocation. The main gap is the huge sibling set of config-related tools (setters and dedicated getters for autoloads/plugins/export presets), so an explicit cross-reference such as 'to modify settings use godot_set_project_setting' would have made it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was supposed to compensate, but it barely does. The parenthetical examples overlap with the section parameter examples already present in the schema ('application', 'display/window'), and it says nothing about the response_format parameter or the option to filter by prefix. The schema itself provides good parameter docs, so the description adds negligible value beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Query settings from project.godot') and gives helpful examples of what settings are covered ('application name, display, physics'). It is easily recognizable as a read-only config getter, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling getters such as godot_get_export_presets or godot_get_autoloads, nor from its write counterpart godot_set_project_setting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives — no mention of the corresponding setter, no 'use when reading project config before modifying', and no exclusions such as 'for export presets, use godot_get_export_presets'. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'Query'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description tells the agent that the effect is a mutation of project.godot, which is useful. The annotations provide little safety context, and the description does not go deeper into persistence effects, side effects on running scenes, or what 'remove' implies for existing references. No contradiction with the annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficiently structured. It loses one point because brevity leaves the mapping from its verbs to the input parameters entirely to the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with no useful annotation hints, the description is too thin: it does not explain how add/remove/reorder is selected, that path is required when adding or updating, or what the persistent impact on the project is. The schema covers some of this, but the unsupported 'reorder' claim leaves an important gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance, and the promised 'reorder' operation has no corresponding order/position/index parameter in the schema, making that usage difficult or impossible to invoke correctly. The schema's property descriptions are helpful, but the tool description does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource being modified ('Autoload singletons in project.godot') and lists concrete mutation verbs: add, remove, reorder. This distinguishes it from the read-only sibling godot_get_autoloads. It is not a full 5 because it claims 'reorder' without any corresponding schema field or explanation of how ordering is expressed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is inferable: use this tool when you need to modify Autoload singletons, whereas godot_get_autoloads is presumably the read counterpart. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, which the description aligns with via 'Add or adjust'. However, the description adds little beyond what annotations already imply. It does not mention side effects like whether changes persist or if the layout file is modified unless explicitly requested via parameters. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. The main verb and object are front-loaded, and it is immediately clear what the tool does. Nothing extraneous is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool dealing with audio effects on buses, the description omits key context such as whether the bus must already exist, what happens if the effect is already present, or how 'adjust' behaves with existing effects. The annotations are all false/default, providing no safety net. The lack of any usage context or return behavior leaves a significant gap for an agent to invoke this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters; the tool description does not mention any parameter names, types, or relationships. The schema itself is well-documented, but the description provides no compensation. This forces an agent to rely entirely on the schema, which is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add or adjust') and the resource ('real-time audio effects on an audio bus'). It is distinguishable from related tools like godot_configure_audio_bus and godot_get_audio_layout. The wording is specific and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios requiring effect management as opposed to bus configuration, nor any conditions under which this tool should be preferred. The description gives no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the mutation ('set') but does not mention persistence, in-place editing of the material resource, or behavior when the parameter name is invalid. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward setter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The one-line description plus the richly described input schema covers what the tool does and how to supply parameters. It still omits behavioral context such as whether the change persists, what happens on invalid uniforms, and any active-scene requirement, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning, only 'uniform values.' However, the nested input schema provides valuable semantics: valid value types, node_path vs. material_path alternatives, and concrete examples for parameter_name. Because the description does not add meaning beyond the schema, a middle score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear, specific verb ('Set') and a concrete target ('shader parameter uniform values on a ShaderMaterial'), so an agent understands the operation and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like godot_create_shader or godot_validate_shader, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an existing ShaderMaterial or an active scene. The only cue is the verb 'Set,' which implies modification but does not provide routing or exclusion information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'scaffold' implying creation of nodes, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=false annotation, but it does not disclose side effects such as modifying the scene tree, requirements for an active scene, or behavior when nodes already exist. No additional behavioral context beyond the annotation is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that conveys the core functionality without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and target nodes, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five parameters and a specific scene-modifying operation, the description is far too brief. It omits important context such as prerequisites (e.g., an active scene), what happens to existing nodes, whether hand tracking is included, and any post-conditions. Although an output schema exists, the description does not elaborate on side effects or setup requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters at all. Although the input schema includes descriptions for each parameter (rig_name, parent_path, etc.), the tool description adds zero value in explaining parameter purpose or usage. Since schema description coverage is effectively 0% from the description's perspective, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents to rely solely on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it scaffolds a specific set of nodes (XROrigin3D, XRCamera3D, XRController3D) for an XR tracking rig. The verb 'scaffold' is specific and the resource is explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like godot_configure_xr_passthrough which focus on different aspects of XR setup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., requires an active scene, whether it replaces existing rigs, or when hand tracking should be enabled). It simply states what it does without context on selection or invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds minimal context beyond that: it specifies 'active' viewport, which is useful, but does not disclose that saving a file via output_path is a side effect, nor explain the response behavior (base64 vs saved file). Since annotations cover the main safety profile, the description's added value is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence that states the core action without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and avoids unnecessary detail, which is ideal for a simple tool. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the rich parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks differentiation from the sibling 'godot_capture_viewport' and provides no usage context or caveats. An agent could call this tool without confusion, but might also mistakenly choose it over a similar sibling. The output schema is present, so return values are covered externally.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters: output_path, viewport_type, and response_format, including their default values and return behavior. Thus the schema carries the full semantic load, and the description adds nothing about parameters. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers the parameters well; no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'capture' and the resource 'screenshot of active game or editor viewport'. It is specific about what is captured, though it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'godot_capture_viewport', which likely serves a similar purpose. The intent is unambiguous for a human, and an agent can infer the core action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling tool 'godot_capture_viewport' that may be equivalent, but the description neither mentions it nor gives conditions for choosing one over the other. The context of 'active' viewport is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral detail—such as whether it replaces existing PhysicalBone3D nodes, whether it requires a specific skeleton selection, or what happens to the scene graph. Since annotations provide minimal coverage, the description carries insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff and is efficient for the agent to parse. It earns its place by being both concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too terse for a tool that modifies the scene by creating physical bones. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., that a Skeleton3D must exist), whether existing ragdoll structures are replaced, how the resulting hierarchy behaves, or what the return value entails. While an output schema exists, the description leaves critical context about side effects and usage expectations unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description does not mention any parameters, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each (bounce, friction, bone_names, shape_type, mass_per_bone, skeleton_node_path). Since the schema itself covers the parameters adequately, the description does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Automatically construct PhysicalBone3D hierarchies from Skeleton3D' clearly states the action (construct), the resource (PhysicalBone3D hierarchies), and the source (Skeleton3D). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'godot_configure_physics_joint' or 'godot_setup_inverse_kinematics' by focusing on ragdoll generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions (e.g., 'use for ragdoll setups' or 'for other joint-based physics use X') or list any alternatives. The purpose implies usage but without explicit direction, an agent must infer when to select this over the many physics-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Query all configured...' but does not disclose the optional filter parameter that affects the result set, nor does it describe the output format or any side effects. It does not add behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, and the claim of 'all' is slightly misleading given the filter option.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that starts with the action verb. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not mention the optional filter, the expected output, or any usage context. It omits key information that an agent would need to fully understand the tool's capabilities and limitations, relying solely on the schema for parameter details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the 'params' parameter or the 'filter_prefix' option; the schema itself provides the description for filter_prefix. Since the schema covers the parameter semantics, the description adds no additional meaning, but it does not contradict it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries all configured project input actions and key bindings, using the specific verb 'Query' and resource 'project input actions and key bindings'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_configure_input_action, which is for configuration, and other read tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filtering, read-only nature, or any context where it would be preferred over other tools. The sibling list includes a configuration tool, but no comparative usage is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the purpose and clarifies the projected output (version, build info, mode, project path) without contradicting the annotations, though it adds no side-effect or error information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence that lists all returned fields without fluff. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of the tool's output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple enrichment read (no arguments required), and the description covers the return contents plus the project path, which is the most behaviorally important output for an agent. An error/exception section would be a nice addition but is not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no details about the response_format parameter. The parameter's own description covers its allowed values, but per the rubric, the tool description should compensate for low schema coverage—it doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (get) with a precise resource (Godot Engine version, build info, mode, and project path). It tells the agent exactly what data is returned, though it doesn't distinguish it from siblings like godot_get_project_settings purely by reading the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description never explains when this tool is appropriate over sibling tools that also deal with project or engine state, leaving the agent without routing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Force reload' and 'in memory', which clarifies scope but omits side effects, failure modes, or impact on running instances. This is minimal and offers little beyond the tool name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. However, with no annotations describing safety or effects, the description lacks critical context about side effects or error conditions. It is minimally viable but incomplete for an agent to fully understand consequences of calling it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description does not mention the parameter at all. Although the input schema contains a description for 'script_paths', the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage from the description's perspective. Since the description does not compensate for this low coverage, it adds no value in explaining parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Force reload') and the resource ('modified GDScript resources in memory'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like godot_validate_script or godot_create_script. The purpose is immediately understandable without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when reload is needed, or that alternatives like godot_validate_script might be used for validation. An agent would have to infer the use case (hot-reload after edits) without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false (non-readonly, non-openworld, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds 'debug mode' context and the timeout param implies console log capture, which supplements the sparse annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. No wasted words, though the phrasing could be slightly richer without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, and key runtime behavior (debug mode, console logs, timeout) is captured. Missing potential failure modes but adequate overall.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (scene_path, extra_arguments, response_format, timeout_seconds), so schema coverage is high. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specifies a clear verb ('Launch'), resource ('project or scene'), and qualifier ('in debug mode via CLI'). Distinguishable from siblings like godot_run_tests and godot_export_project, though 'via CLI' is slightly redundant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_run_tests (test execution) or godot_export_project (build export). No exclusions or alternative references provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to re-establish the mutation profile. It adds modest behavioral context by describing the scattering as GPU-instanced across a bounding area, which implies the creation of many instances efficiently. However, it does not disclose what the tool does to the active scene—e.g., whether it creates a new node, overwrites an existing one, or how placement randomness works.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of under ten words with no wasted phrases. 'High-performance' is mildly generic, but the rest is compact and relevant, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool of moderate complexity, the description only covers the high-level idea, leaving the agent reliant on the rich nested schema and output schema for operational details. It does not mention important context such as active scene requirements, default behaviors when mesh_path is omitted (the schema covers this), or the result of invoking the tool. The gaps are partially compensated by structured annotations, but the description itself remains incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The top-level 'params' field has no description in the schema, but the nested properties are thoroughly documented (units, fallback mesh behavior, path semantics, alignment flags, etc.). The tool description itself adds almost nothing beyond linking '3D bounding area' to the area_size concept, so the schema carries the parameter-semantic burden and the description neither helps nor hurts meaningfully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('scattering') and resource ('GPU instanced' meshes across a '3D bounding area'), which conveys the core purpose and hints at the MultiMesh mechanism behind the tool name. It does not name the sibling it is an alternative to, nor does it state that it creates/updates a MultiMeshInstance3D in the active scene, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named (e.g., godot_generate_procedural_mesh, godot_configure_particles). The only implicit hint is 'High-performance GPU instanced', which suggests use for large-scale scattering, but prerequisites like an open scene, a parent node, or a valid mesh_path are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish this is a safe, side-effect-free operation, and the description is fully consistent with them — 'parse and validate' is read-only in nature. The description adds marginal value beyond annotations by specifying the check scope (syntax and type errors), but discloses nothing about error-handling behavior, validation result structure, or whether the file is accessed on disk. It meets the lower bar that annotations permit but doesn't exceed it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single eight-word sentence with no filler: 'Parse and validate GDScript code for syntax and type errors.' Every word carries meaning, the verb leads, and there is nothing to cut. This is the gold standard of concision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple validation tool, the description is nearly sufficient: output schema covers return values, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) cover the safety profile, and the schema documents parameters. Minor omissions include not clarifying what happens on invalid input or how this differs from godot_validate_shader, but given the supportive structured data, the minimal description closes most of the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was required to compensate but contains no parameter information whatsoever — script_path, code_content, and response_format are entirely unexplained by 'Parse and validate GDScript code for syntax and type errors.' Fortuitously, the input schema's own property descriptions are strong (mutual exclusivity note, example paths, format enum), so the practical harm is limited, but the description itself contributes nothing to parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb pair ('Parse and validate') plus a well-scoped resource ('GDScript code') and names the concrete outcome ('syntax and type errors'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the near-sibling godot_validate_shader by naming the language, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when to prefer script_path over code_content, or what prerequisites apply. The term 'validate' conveys an obvious use-case, but no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual triggers are mentioned, so an agent gets no help choosing between this and the similar validation and script-introspection tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Register' is consistent with a mutating (though non-destructive) operation. The description adds the context that the action affects project.godot, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as overwriting, idempotency, or what happens if the translation already exists. The description adds modest value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter), and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, the description lacks usage guidelines and any note about the tool's effect on the project (e.g., modifies project.godot) beyond the phrase 'in project.godot'. It does not mention prerequisites like file existence or supported formats. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not fully complete; an agent might benefit from knowing when to use this vs. godot_get_translations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides full descriptions for both parameters: translation_path (with examples) and test_locale (e.g., 'es', 'de'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (the schema includes descriptions), the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor diminishes parameter clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Register') and the resource ('a localization translation file in project.godot'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling godot_get_translations by implying a mutating operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb and object are clear and not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., when adding a translation might be redundant or require specific file formats). The sibling godot_get_translations exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the narrow audit context (unused assets, missing dependencies, broken paths) which goes beyond what annotations declare, but it does not explain things like performance impact, report location, or types of results. This is adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence that begins with a verb and has no unnecessary wording. It is efficient and prohibits wasted space, though it is not as 'opinionated' or as directive as it could be. It avoids vagueness and is concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The core scan intent is spelled out, and the output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, there is no mention of how ignorable parameters widen or narrow the scan, and no guidance on when to pick this over adjacent sibling tools. It is enough for basic recognition but not strongly complete for nuanced selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention ignore_paths or include_extensions at all. Since the effective coverage is near zero, the description must compensate by summarizing parameter behavior, but it does not. An agent gets no non-schema help in deciding how to configure the audit parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a strong, specific verb ('Scan') with a clear resource ('the project') and three concrete audit dimensions ('unused assets, missing dependencies, or broken paths'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from similar siblings such as godot_audit_orphan_nodes or godot_clean_orphans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use can be inferred from the imperative 'Scan project', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives list. No exclusions are given, and sibling tools like godot_get_dependencies or godot_clean_orphans are not referenced. This puts it at an implied-usage level rather than providing concrete decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the purpose (memory leak detection) but does not explain what the tool returns, how detection works, or the effect of the print_orphans_to_stdout parameter. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word delivers meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one boolean parameter, clear schema, and an output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain what the output looks like, when to prefer this over godot_clean_orphans, or the exact meaning of 'detect' beyond a high-level statement. These are not critical but would improve an agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter's description in the schema ('Whether to call Node.print_orphan_nodes() in engine stdout.') is explicit. The tool description adds no additional semantic value about parameters. With schema coverage at 100% for this parameter's meaning, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Detect memory leaks from unparented orphan nodes in SceneTree' clearly states a specific verb (detect) and resource (orphan nodes), and the tool name reinforces it. It is distinguishable from the sibling godot_clean_orphans based on the verb (detect vs clean), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. That excludes the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives like godot_clean_orphans or the broader godot_audit_assets. The description does not mention conditions for use, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clarifies that only 'active runtime' drawing shapes are removed, which adds scope beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain whether this affects generated visuals only, whether the action is reversible, or whether it removes only shapes created by the companion draw tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the qualifiers 'active' and 'runtime' add necessary precision without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a very simple clear operation, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. Still, it omits useful operational context such as the effect of filtering by category, whether the action is undoable, and how this relates to the debug-drawing lifecycle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description does not mention the 'category' filter, leaving the schema to carry that meaning. The schema does provide a useful description and examples for the parameter, so the agent can still understand the input; the prose just does not add extra semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the exact resource ('active runtime debug drawing shapes'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling godot_draw_debug_shapes, but it does not explicitly contrast it with related debug-related tools such as godot_set_physics_debug_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives might be more appropriate. There is no mention that it pairs with godot_draw_debug_shapes or that it is meant for cleanup after debug visualization sessions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate no read-only, open-world, idempotent, or destructive hints, leaving the description to carry behavioral context. The description does not disclose potential side effects like creating a node in the scene tree, or whether the operation can be undone. It does not mention any important behaviors such as automatic node naming conflicts or scene attachment details. There is no contradiction with annotations, but coverage is weak.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is extremely brief and does not include any additional useful details such as common use cases or parameter hints. While there is no waste, the brevity results in under-specification for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (though not shown) and a rich input schema with many nested options. The description provides minimal context and does not explain how to choose between 2D and 3D or how handles work. But given the comprehensive schema, the description is sufficient for basic understanding. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, but lacks edge-case guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for every parameter, including defaults and explanations for path_type, points, and closed. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds little value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Construct) and the resource (Path2D or Path3D curves with control points). It distinguishes this tool from other creation tools like godot_create_node or godot_create_csg_shape by specifying curve-specific functionality. The description is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for constructing curves, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_create_node (which could also create nodes). There are no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool mentions. The context is clear enough for a curve-creation task, but lacks explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given all annotation hints are false/empty, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does state the essence: it creates a navigation region plus a navmesh. Yet it ignores important nuances—for instance whether a default navmesh is generated when navmesh_path is null, and the 2D vs 3D resource type difference—so disclosure beyond the annotation is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence with zero filler. The verb and primary resource are front-loaded, making it instantly scannable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple creator with a thorough nested schema and an output schema, so a short description is acceptable. However, the description fails to point the agent to the typical workflow of creating a navigation region and later baking it via godot_bake_navmesh, and it propagates the wire 2D/3D resource distinction gap, leaving those nuances out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The top-level params parameter itself has 0% schema description coverage, so the description could have compensated, but it mostly just confirms the dimension (2D vs 3D) and the navmesh resource, which maps to the dimension and navmesh_path properties. The heavy lifting is done by the nested CreateNavigationRegionInput schema, which already describes name, dimension, navmesh_path, and parent_node_path comprehensively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Create') and a specific resource ('NavigationRegion2D or NavigationRegion3D with NavigationMesh'), distinguishing it well from generic node creation. However, 'with NavigationMesh' is imprecise for the 2D case, since NavigationRegion2D uses a NavigationPolygon, and it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling godot_bake_navmesh.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related alternatives like godot_bake_navmesh or godot_configure_navigation_obstacle, nor are prerequisites stated such as the need for an active scene for parent_node_path to resolve. The description simply declares the action and leaves all selection reasoning to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond those flags. It does add 'deep' and the signal/script toggles, but it omits details like where the duplicate is placed, how defaults affect groups, or what scene context is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler, and the core action ('deep duplicate a node') is front-loaded. It is economical and easy to scan, though the low level of detail is penalized elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a moderately complex schema and a large sibling set, this one-line description is minimally adequate. The output schema and annotations soften the gap, but the description does not clarify default insertion behavior, nested duplication semantics, or how the operation interacts with the scene tree and undo behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions only two optional toggles ('signal' and 'script') and provides no explanation of the required node_path, new_name, duplicate_groups, or target_parent_path behavior. With the reported schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not compensate for the six-parameter input surface, so the agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb-resource pair ('duplicate a node') and adds the important qualifier 'deep', which distinguishes it from a shallow copy or simple create. It is more informative than the title 'Duplicate Node', but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as godot_create_node or godot_instantiate_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'deep duplicate' plus 'signal and script flags' implies a reasonable use case: copy a node while controlling whether scripts and signal connections follow. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, such as using godot_create_node for a new empty node or godot_instantiate_scene for an instanced scene.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Locate' is consistent with this, signaling a query-style operation. However, it adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations, such as performance implications, search scope, or how results are ordered. The operation is clearly non-destructive, but that's already captured by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, and the selector list adds specificity without redundancy. This is a model of concise, effective description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (a read-only finder), and annotations plus an output schema cover many basics. However, the description misses the chance to clarify when to use 'root_path' to scope searches or how 'max_results' impacts results. Given the schema has rich descriptions for these, the gap is mitigated but not eliminated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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. It partially covers the 'query' parameter by listing example values ('text, name, class, group, or role') but omits 'property' and 'path', which are valid selector types. It does not address 'root_path' or 'max_results' at all. Given the low coverage, this is a notable gap in helping the agent understand parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Locate') and resource ('UI elements'), and specifies the search dimensions (text, name, class, group, or role). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like godot_get_node or godot_list_nodes, though without naming them explicitly. The plural 'elements' and selector list make the tool's scope obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to find UI elements by the listed selectors, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The schema's selector_type documentation enriches this context, but the description itself stays generic. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already tells the agent this is a safe query operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it doesn't disclose what a dependency graph looks like, whether transitive dependencies are returned, or any performance implications. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that states the verb, the resource queried (dependency list), and the input type. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists and the description names its purpose, but there's no mention of whether dependencies include only external resources or also internal references, or whether the list is recursive. The description is adequate but leaves ambiguity for deeper queries.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The path parameter has a fully descriptive schema definition that includes resource and scene path examples. With schema_description_coverage at 100% for this single parameter, the description adds nothing beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Query) and resource (dependency list for a scene/resource/script). It communicates the core purpose clearly)Skip. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like godot_list_project_files or godot_audit_orphans, so it's not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of supported input types, output format, or typical use cases. The agent must infer when dependency queries are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'inspect' is consistent with that. The description adds a bit of detail about what is inspected (exported properties, methods, constants, signals), which is useful, but it doesn't go beyond the annotation's read-only implication to explain side effects, performance considerations, or what happens if the node has no script.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, terse sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No redundancy or filler; every word adds meaning about the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a one-line description ablout the tool, an output schema exists, and the schema fully documents the single parameterholde. However, the description omits any guidance on how this differs from other introspection tools (class info, documentation, LSP query) and what the return structure looks like. It is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the only parameter (node_path), so the description doesn't add meaning. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage (>80%), baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on node_path semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'inspect' and the resource (exported properties, methods, constants, signals of a node's script), which clearly identifies the operation. It is specific about what is inspected, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like godot_get_class_info or godot_get_documentation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_get_node, godot_get_class_info, godot_get_documentation, or godot_lsp_query. The description provides no context about scenarios where script inspection is appropriate or prerequisites like needing a valid node path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the read-only safety profile is already covered and the verb 'Query' is consistent with it — no contradiction. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as what happens when node_path is invalid, whether an absent signal_name returns everything, or whether disconnected nodes produce empty results. With the annotation baseline in place, this is acceptable but nothing more.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Seven words with zero filler: verb, scope, and resource are all front-loaded in the first sentence. Nothing repeats what the title or schema already states, and there is no extraneous prose. For a simple query tool this is the ideal size.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the absence of return-value documentation is fine. The remaining deficiencies are the missing pointer to godot_get_node_signals and the implicit 'active scene' scope, which only appears in the node_path description. For a straightforward read-only inspection tool this is adequate, but the description alone would not fully orient an agent navigating the large sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema itself documents every parameter well: node_path is required, incoming/outgoing default to true, and signal_name is an optional null filter. The tool description's 'incoming and outgoing' phrasing aligns with the two boolean flags, which is mildly helpful, but it adds no explanation of the node path or filtering semantics. The CONTEXT signal reports 0% coverage; against that standard the description only partially compensates via directionality, so 3 is the correct baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb + resource: 'Query all incoming and outgoing signal connections.' The incoming/outgoing phrasing conveys that the tool inspects connections in both directions, which narrows its scope. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling godot_get_node_signals, so an agent may still need to compare schemas to distinguish 'signal connections' from 'node signals.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The single-sentence description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes godot_get_node_signals, godot_connect_signal, and godot_get_node_script_info, and the description does not explain whether to reach for this tool when inspecting a particular connection, debugging a missing signal, or verifying link wiring. No when/when-not context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Query' is consistent. The description adds value by listing the specific properties returned (dimensions, format, VRAM compression, mipmaps), but does not explain errors or edge cases. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and result. No filler words, but it lacks structural formatting like bullets. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only query tool with an output schema defines return values, the description is reasonably complete. It lists the queried attributes and the schema covers the parameter. Missing are explicit error cases or format details, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the texture_path parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The input schema itself includes a clear description of the parameter, so the description adds no meaning. Given low coverage and no compensation, the score is low.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Query') and specific resource attributes ('dimensions, format, VRAM compression, and mipmaps'), distinguishing it from most sibling tools through both name and content. It does not explicitly call out a sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving texture metadata, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like godot_audit_assets or godot_get_node. The context is clear from the name, but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the useful behavioral nuance that the operation targets the 'active' editor undo/redo manager rather than a specific scene, but it does not disclose what happens when there is nothing to redo or what state changes result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single twelve-word sentence that puts the verb front and center with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the action and target adequately. However, it leaves meaningful gaps: the meaning of 'active' is unspecified, the prerequisite of a prior undo is implied but never stated, and failure behavior (no-op when the redo stack is empty) is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description itself contains zero parameter information, but the input schema's description for history_id is thorough, covering optionality and the default target ('currently edited scene undo history'). With only one parameter and a well-documented schema property, the description's silence is tolerable, so the baseline of 3 applies despite the 0% schema-coverage context signal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Trigger redo') and a specific resource ('the active Godot Editor undo/redo manager'), making the action unambiguous. It is clear and semantically self-evident against its main sibling godot_undo, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use redo versus its alternative godot_undo, nor any prerequisites such as the existence of a prior undo operation. No exclusions, no conditions, and no context about when the tool will succeed or fail are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description doesn't disclose side effects beyond the action itself. It doesn't mention ordering implications, transform preservation (though covered by parameter), or potential errors, so the agent lacks awareness of full behavioral impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no redundancy. It immediately conveys the core operation without filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema is provided, the description doesn't address edge cases (e.g., node not found, invalid parent) or any constraints on usage. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap, but it's not severely incomplete given the clarity of the core action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptive text for each parameter (e.g., node_path, new_parent_path, new_index, keep_global_transform). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'move' and the resource 'node' to a 'new parent' within the 'active scene tree'. This is specific and distinguishes it from related operations like setting ownership or deleting nodes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_set_node_owner or godot_duplicate_node. It doesn't mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral disclosure is 'Auto-wait'; the description does not state that the tool blocks until timeout, what happens when the condition is never met, or whether the scene must be running. Annotations are weak (readOnlyHint=false and no safety specifics), so the description carries a heavier burden and does not meet it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler: it names the action and the kinds of targets in one compact statement. It could not be much shorter while still conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a multi-option wait/synchronization tool, one sentence is thin: it omits timeout/failure semantics and exact condition types. The detailed input schema and output schema provide invocation-level detail, so the description is adequate for tool selection but not a complete behavioral reference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds only high-level categories like node appearance, property thresholds, and signals, without mapping them to condition_type values, expression syntax, or expected_value. The schema's property descriptions already document each parameter meaningfully, so the description's contribution here is marginal rather than essential.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: automatically wait until a Godot condition such as node appearance, property threshold, or signal is met. This distinguishes it from the many unrelated sibling tools. However, 'signals' is imprecise because the schema exposes no signal-specific condition type, and the description does not name the exact condition_type values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrasing implies use whenever the agent needs to block until a node, property, or expression condition is satisfied, so usage context is indirectly present. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives, though none of the sibling tools are obvious wait equivalents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description doesn't contradict them and conveys that it's a mutation operation. It doesn't add extra behavioral context like whether the environment is mutated in place, saved to a resource, or whether node_path vs save_path are mutually exclusive, so it adds only minimal transparency beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that front-loads the tool's domain. All the parameter detail lives in the schema where it belongs, so the description stays appropriately concise without being vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's functional surface — background modes, glow, tonemap, ambient light, SSR/SSAO/SSIL, and volumetric fog — the description names only four categories, omitting SSAO/SSIL and volumetric fog. The ambiguity of how node_path and save_path interact plus the missing guidance on defaults or dependencies makes the contextual picture incomplete but not unacceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is effectively 0% because the input schema has a single 'params' wrapper object, but each property inside that object has its own description. Those property descriptions reuse the names and enums, which explains values but adds only incremental meaning. Notably, the description doesn't explain the relationship between node_path and save_path, which is an important semantic gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Adjust WorldEnvironment background, glow, tonemap, and ambient light' uses a clear verb and resource, and enumerates the specific property groups it affects. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like godot_configure_render_settings or godot_configure_camera, but it does state the relevant categories well enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates this is for configuring a WorldEnvironment node's rendering environment. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. However, the tool name and description make its targeted domain reasonably discernible, so the usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates this is a non-read-only mutation by stating it creates and adds a node. It does not disclose side effects like undo behavior, save requirements, or failure when no scene is active. Annotations already flag non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the active-scene target, but more behavioral detail would be welcome.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no filler or unnecessary repetition. It front-loads the core action and scope. It could be expanded with prerequisites or side effects, but as a short description it earns high marks for economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a detailed input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential operation well. Main gaps are unstated prerequisites, such as requiring an active scene, and unspecified side effects. Overall it is adequate for a moderately complex creation tool but leaves some operational details to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds useful context: 'any Godot class' clarifies the type_name parameter's range, and 'active scene' grounds the parent_path default. Although context signals report 0% schema description coverage, the schema itself documents each parameter thoroughly. The description supplements rather than replaces the schema, landing at the viability baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a precise operation: create and add a new node to the active scene. The phrase 'any Godot class' conveys generality and helps distinguish it from specialized creators like godot_create_csg_shape or godot_instantiate_scene. It is clear enough for an agent to select the tool correctly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need to add a node to the currently active scene, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state prerequisites such as requiring an open scene. The 'active scene' qualifier gives useful context, yet when-not-to-use guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations give little positive information (all hints are false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the shader is executed; it does not mention output buffer readback, resource allocation, side effects, or behavior on shader compilation failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no filler; it is front-loaded with the main action and the API context is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place and the description is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema and output schema provide most of the parameter and return-value context, and the description establishes basic purpose. What is missing is guidance on when this is the right tool, side-effect awareness, and any limitations of the RenderingDevice API path.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description has 0% overlap with the schema parameters, mentioning none of them explicitly. The nested schema is rich with descriptions and defaults, but the tool description itself contributes no guidance for shader_code, input_buffers, workgroup_size, or even output behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly and specifically states the action: 'Execute compute shader on GPU' via the 'low-level RenderingDevice API'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like godot_validate_shader or godot_create_shader by communicating that this is an execution/dispatch operation, not a validation or creation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for low-level GPU compute dispatch, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like godot_validate_shader or godot_set_shader_param. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that point the agent towards or away from this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly stating shapes are temporary and have durations. It does not discuss whether previous shapes are cleared or whether rendering requires a running game, but it meaningfully discloses lifetime behavior that the sparse annotation flags do not convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. It is appropriately concise for an overview, even though the underlying schema is complex.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex input—an array of shape specs with multiple 2D/3D coordinate variants and nine properties—the description is too terse. It omits any high-level guidance on shape selection, coordinate conventions, when to use 2D vs 3D shapes, or the relationship to godot_clear_debug_shapes. The schema helps, but the description does not provide the contextual framing an agent needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds only high-level hints about 'colors' and 'durations', while the input schema provides detailed per-field descriptions for shape_type, position, size, radius, start/end, text, and other properties. The schema carries most of the parameter meaning, and the description does not mislead, so this is acceptable but not compensatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('Render') and resource ('2D/3D debug shapes') with key attributes ('temporary', 'colors', 'durations'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling godot_clear_debug_shapes or other debug-rendering tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_clear_debug_shapes, godot_set_physics_debug_mode, or godot_cast_ray_3d. The description states only the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts such as visualizing debug geometry during development or testing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., behavior on missing node, requirement for active physics simulation), so it provides only minimal added context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks usage context and any mention of applicable node types or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description does not elaborate on the node_path parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. Although the input schema itself includes a helpful description for node_path, the tool description only vaguely implies the target is a physics body, providing incomplete compensation for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and clearly identifies the resource (3D body physics state) and the exact data returned (transform, linear/angular velocity, contacts). This distinguishes it from other physics tools like ray casting or shape casting, and aligns with the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as godot_assert_node_state or other inspection tools. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or complementary tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions specific data categories (inheritance, properties, methods, signals) but does not describe return format or any potential side effects. The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds only moderate detail beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words or repetition. It is easy to parse and quickly understood.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple query tool, but it does not provide context about when to invoke it, what the output looks like, or how it relates to other query tools. Since an output schema is present, the description need not explain return values, but it lacks usage context that would make it fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0% (the tool description does not reference the params). While the schema itself has descriptions for each field, the description fails to compensate for this lack of coverage, leaving parameter semantics entirely dependent on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to query class inheritance, properties, methods, and signals from ClassDB. It specifies a concrete action (query) and target (ClassDB), making it distinct from the many sibling tools that perform mutations or other queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as godot_get_node or godot_get_version. It lacks context about typical use cases or situations where this query is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavior beyond the conversion itself—it does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the resource lacks a UID), return format, or side effects. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate for a simple conversion tool that lacks further behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the action and outcome with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately clear. Every word earns its place, making it exemplary in conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks any mention of error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., resource must have a UID), or the nature of the return value. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter details, but the description does not address potential failure modes or clarify the expected output beyond the name. Given the simplicity, a 3 is fair—it is not inadequate but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description makes no mention of the parameter 'path'. While the input schema provides a clear description with examples (e.g., 'res://scenes/player.tscn'), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is effectively 0% from the tool description's perspective (the description does not compensate), the tool description does not assist an agent in understanding parameter usage. The schema itself is helpful, but the description adds zero value here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Convert'), names the exact resource ('resource path'), and specifies the output format ('native Godot uid:// identifier'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like godot_resolve_uid, which likely does the reverse, and other unrelated tools. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling godot_resolve_uid or any condition that would select this tool over another. The agent is left to infer that this is for path-to-UID conversion, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the specific scoping of what is queried (texture, buffer, render target), which is useful additional context. However, it does not describe output format or behavior of the 'detailed' flag, but this is minor given annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It efficiently states what is queried, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple inspection tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single optional param) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient. However, it lacks any hint of how to interpret the output or typical use cases, which could be beneficial. With a single parameter and no need to explain return values due to output schema, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'detailed'. The description does not mention 'detailed' at all, relying purely on the schema. The schema itself does describe 'detailed' as 'Whether to include granular breakdowns for texture, buffer, and video memory', which provides semantic meaning, but the tool description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Query VRAM texture, buffer, and render target allocations' uses a specific verb ('Query'), names the resource (VRAM allocations), and lists the allocation types (texture, buffer, render target), which is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like godot_get_performance_metrics or godot_inspect_rendering_device, but the focus on VRAM is specific enough to avoid major ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a diagnostic/debugging use case (querying VRAM), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_get_performance_metrics or godot_inspect_rendering_device. The context is inferable from the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it can 'synchronize' and mentions recursive behavior via the parameter, but does not disclose side effects like what happens to existing owner relationships or whether this affects scene persistence. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description could add more context about the impact of changing ownership.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (though not shown in detail) and three parameters, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain why setting owner is important (e.g., for scene saving, instancing) or when recursive should be used. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but the description lacks context about the tool's role in scene management. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. The description mentions 'owner property' and the schema has three parameters (node_path, recursive, owner_node_path) with descriptions. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only implying the owner is set. It does not explain the relationship between parameters or the default behavior of owner_node_path='.' beyond what the schema says.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Set or synchronize') and resource ('owner property of a node'), which is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like godot_reparent_node or godot_modify_node by focusing on the owner property, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (setting owner in a scene tree) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like reparent_node or modify_node. No exclusions or conditions are given, so the agent must infer when this is the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'configure', which is at least consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose the main behavioral side effect that the schema hints at: the reimport option can immediately trigger a reimport via EditorFileSystem, or that import settings are persisted. With minimal annotation detail, this leaves the side-effect profile under-specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One terse sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the exact asset type. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameter detail lives in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The definition is minimally viable for selecting the tool, and the schema fills in parameters and likely output. It remains incomplete as a standalone description because it omits the reimport side-effect and does not distinguish this from asset reimport/instantiation flows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema already documents all parameters in detail (model_path example, reimport trigger, LOD options, material extraction, shadow mesh, skeleton bones). Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('configure') and a clearly scoped resource ('GLTF/GLB 3D model import presets'), which distinguishes it from sibling configure tools that target particles, rendering, environment, etc. The resource is independent enough that no schema inspection is needed to tell them apart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: adjusting import presets for GLTF/GLB model assets. It does not state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as godot_reimport_asset or godot_configure_lod_manager, nor does it give exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No contradiction with annotations: readOnlyHint=false matches the mutating verbs (assign/set/place). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, however — it does not surface that clear_all can wipe all cells or that cells_to_clear erases cells, which are the tool's potentially disruptive operations. Since the schema separately documents these with descriptions, and the default clear_all=false makes default behavior non-destructive, a 3 is fair.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the three core capabilities. Every word contributes; there is nothing redundant or vague. It is model-efficient and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is brief but the schema is rich, with every parameter documented (including the destructive clear options, collision layers, and orientation semantics), and an output schema is present. The main gap is that the description does not call out the tool's destructive capabilities (clear_all, cells_to_clear) or distinguish it explicitly from TileMap tools, leaving the agent to infer scope from the schema and '3D' wording. Adequate but relies heavily on structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not explain any parameters. However, each property in the schema (cell_size, mesh_library_path, cells_to_set, clear_all, etc.) carries its own detailed description, so the schema fully shoulders the burden. The description's three verbs loosely map to mesh_library_path, cell_size, and cells_to_set, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states specific verbs (Assign, set, place) tied to a concrete resource (MeshLibrary, cell sizes, 3D grid tiles), clearly identifying this as GridMap configuration. The '3D grid tiles' phrasing usefully distinguishes it from the 2D TileMap siblings (set_tilemap_cells, configure_tileset_terrain). It is not a tautology and names real capabilities, though the verbs are slightly generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool is a mutating configuration tool and the '3D grid tiles' wording implies this is the GridMap counterpart to the 2D TileMap tools, giving some contextual routing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g., navigating to a scene), or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, destructive, or idempotent hints), so the description carries the burden. 'Generate' implies creation, but it doesn't disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to existing nodes with the same name, or whether it saves to disk (save_to_resource_path suggests that). It also doesn't mention whether existing meshes are overwritten or if it modifies the scene.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or unnecessary text. It is appropriately minimal for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (multiple mesh types, optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not detailed but implied), the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain the different mesh types (grid, prism, pyramid, custom_vertices) or how to set them up, but the schema provides parameter names and simple descriptions. An agent might need to inspect the schema to fully utilize the tool, but it's adequate for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., size, mesh_type, subdivisions). The description only mentions 'custom procedural 3D meshes' without adding any parameter-specific meaning. Since the schema is self-documenting, the description adds little beyond what's already there, but it doesn't harm.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Generate custom procedural 3D meshes') using a specific tool (SurfaceTool). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like godot_create_csg_shape, which creates CSG shapes, by focusing on procedural meshes. However, it doesn't detail the mesh types supported, relying on the schema for that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for generating procedural meshes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like godot_create_csg_shape or godot_instantiate_model. The sibling context is clear but no exclusions or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description's 'Inspect' aligns with the existing readOnlyHint=true annotation, so there is no contradiction. However, it adds no extra behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey (e.g., it does not state whether it returns an error for a non-existent node or if it triggers any side effects). The annotation covers the key read-only nature, so the description is consistent but not informational.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that lists exactly what the tool inspects with no redundant words. It is well-structured and easy to parse, meeting the ideal of brevity and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope, though it omits any mention of the response_format parameter that could affect output. This is minor since the schema documents it, so overall it is complete for a simple inspection tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero coverage of the parameters (node_path, response_format, include_inherited_properties), while the schema itself offers clear descriptions. Since the description's coverage of parameters is 0%, per the rubric it must compensate, but it does not. The schema descriptions exist, but the tool description adds no value for understanding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Inspect') and the resource ('a specific node'), listing the types of information retrieved (type, script, groups, signals, properties). It unambiguously distinguishes this from more specific node-inspection tools like godot_get_node_signals or godot_get_node_script_info by implying comprehensive inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not mention when to prefer this generic inspection tool over the many specialized sibling tools (e.g., godot_get_node_signals, godot_get_node_script_info). It gives no guidance on selecting between them, leaving the agent to infer based on the listed fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope of metrics (FPS, memory, draw calls, physics) but doesn't disclose details like whether the query is instantaneous or averaged, or if it requires a running project. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists the key metric types. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and has no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by mentioning the category parameter's role.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, read-only, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. The output schema likely describes the return structure, so the description doesn't need to. The main gap is not mentioning when to use this vs. other performance tools, but for a simple query tool, this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (category and include_custom_monitors). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The category parameter's enum values are well-documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('FPS, memory, draw calls, and physics monitors'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like godot_inspect_vram_usage and godot_capture_profiler_trace by focusing on a broad set of performance metrics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for performance monitoring but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_inspect_vram_usage or godot_capture_profiler_trace. The category parameter provides some context on what can be retrieved, but there's no guidance on when to prefer this over other performance-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add the file types (.translation / .csv) as relevant context, but it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits such as whether the result is a list, whether it reflects only currently loaded files, or any side effects. With the safety profile covered by annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema that covers return structure, and it is a simple read-only query with one optional parameter that is described in the schema. The description is sufficient for a competent agent to understand the basic purpose, though it could mention the filtering capability explicitly. Overall, it is complete enough for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and the tool description does not mention the locale_filter parameter at all. It only describes the overall query, leaving the agent to rely on the schema's own description (which does exist but is not credited given the coverage signal). The description adds no value in explaining parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (query) and the resource (registered localization files), and specifies the file types (.translation / .csv). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_add_translation, which handles addition. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is read-only or contrast with add_translation or other localization tools. The context of when to query vs. add is left to inference, providing no explicit usage criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the agent is warned that invocation mutates state, and the description adds that the operation is additive by placing the instance as a child node. However, it does not disclose whether the current scene must be open, whether the new node requires an explicit save to persist, or how invalid scene paths are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The whole description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and has no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every phrase contributes to the tool's semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with many sibling operations, the description is usable but thin: it omits the preconditions (e.g., an open scene, a valid existing scene resource, whether the change is saved automatically) that would help an agent safely invoke it. Since an output schema exists, not explaining the return value is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the `.tscn`/`.scn` file-type hint and the child-node placement, which lightly complements parent concepts like `scene_path` and `parent_path`. Those properties already have good descriptions in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat them, but it also does not add further semantic clarity for `properties`, `response_format`, or the meaning of the instantiation result.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific operation — 'Instantiate a packed scene' — and qualifies the target as a `.tscn` / `.scn` file and the placement as 'a child node.' That is clear enough to separate this from create/open/save scene tools, though it never explicitly names a sibling such as godot_instantiate_model or godot_create_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'as a child node' implies the intended use: adding an already-existing packed scene into the current node tree, rather than creating or opening a scene. There is no explicit when-to-use/not-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, so the direction is only implied and the agent must infer the applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing, but it does not contradict annotations. It could have mentioned output format or side effects, but those are not required given annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters (directory, recursive, response_format, extension_filter) and an output schema, the description only partially addresses them. It does not mention directory, recursive, or response_format, making the tool under-specified for an agent to use correctly without opening the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'matching patterns and extensions' which hints at the extension_filter parameter, but it ignores directory, recursive, and response_format. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for all parameters, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), resource (files in the Godot project tree), and scope (matching patterns and extensions). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools such as godot_get_texture_info or godot_audit_assets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for filtering files by patterns/extensions but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It lacks direct comparisons or conditions (e.g., 'use this instead of X when...') that would clearly guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, consistent with a mutation, and destructiveHint=false, meaning the operation is considered reversible via LSP undo. The description adds context by implying the operation mutates symbols across multiple files, which is a significant side-effect-bearing behavior worth flagging. However, the description doesn't cover important behavioral traits like failure modes (symbol not found), file-saving requirements, or whether the change is immediately persisted — leaving meaningful gaps for a refactoring operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Six words, zero waste, with the operation, resource, and scope all accurately front-loaded into a single clause. Every word earns its place. An exemplary model of how concise a description should be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex, cross-file refactoring tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema in the definition. Yet the description provides no context about expected failure modes, preconditions (e.g., LSP must resolve the symbol), or behavior on ambiguity. For a tool that can rewrite the user's codebase across multiple files, the absence of any guidance beyond six words leaves a critical gap in an agent's ability to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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, yet it mentions none of the four parameters. While the nested LSPRenameInput schema does contain helpful descriptions (e.g., '1-indexed line number of the symbol to rename'), the top-level tool description itself is silent on parameter meaning. An agent must dig into nested schema definitions, which rescues usability but gains no credit for the tool description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description, 'Perform cross-file semantic symbol rename,' names a specific verb (rename), a resource (symbol), and a scope (cross-file) that distinguishes it from all 190+ siblings. The word 'semantic' differentiates it from text-based find/replace, and 'cross-file' signals the operation's project-wide blast radius. An agent can distinguish this from godot_lsp_query and godot_validate_script immediately.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clearly implied through 'cross-file semantic' — the agent can infer this is for renaming symbols that span multiple files. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'for single-file text replacement use X'). Unlike the HIGH calibration example which explicitly routed to search_calls_extensive, this provides guidance only through implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the purpose and does not disclose what happens after recording (e.g., output format, side effects). Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence without unnecessary words. It clearly states the action and purpose, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, the description adequately conveys what it does. It lacks details about the output or return type, but given no output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter frames_to_sample has a full description in the schema, explaining its meaning. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema covers it, so the description does not need to add more. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'record' and the resource 'engine frame timeline trace slices' with a specific purpose ('performance bottleneck analysis'). It differentiates this tool from siblings like godot_get_performance_metrics, which is a different action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for profiling and checking performance, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like godot_get_performance_metrics or describe when not to use. The intent is inferable but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description has a lower burden. It adds the context of high-resolution capture and AI inspection, but it does not describe whether the default response includes base64, whether a file is saved, or how output is delivered beyond relying on the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one focused, brief sentence that communicates the core action and purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a tool that also has a rich schema and output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations, output schema, and the detailed parameter schema, the definition is largely complete for an agent to use the tool. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly advise when to choose this over godot_take_screenshot or tell the caller to enable include_base64 when AI vision processing is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema itself documents all five parameters with defaults and descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description's 'high-resolution' and 'AI Vision' wording loosely maps to max_width/max_height and include_base64, but it adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: capturing a high-resolution viewport frame for AI Vision inspection. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool godot_take_screenshot, but the 'viewport frame' and AI-inspection framing provide reasonable differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for AI Vision inspection' implies an intended use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus godot_take_screenshot guidance and no exclusions. An agent can infer usage, but the tool does not help disambiguate between its capture siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation and mentions the underlying PhysicsDirectSpaceState3D API, which gives some context about execution scope. However, it does not add further behavioral detail, such as whether hits are returned as the nearest collision only or how the default mask behaves. Annotations already cover the main safety trait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence that immediately communicates the operation, its dimensionality, and the API context. There is no filler, unnecessary repetition, or structural bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the output schema exists and the only notable alternative is godot_cast_shape_3d, the tool is adequately described for a simple, read-only raycast operation. The description could mention how it differs from shape casting, but the physics API reference and input schema provide enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description adds little parameter-specific semantics beyond framing this as a physics space query. The input schema itself provides detailed descriptions for from_pos, to_pos, exclude_nodes, collision_mask, hit_from_inside, and collision type toggles, so the description does not need to compensate heavily. This is a baseline score consistent with the schema carrying the parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Perform 3D raycast query against PhysicsDirectSpaceState3D'), clearly conveying a read-oriented physics query. It is unambiguous and the tool name reinforces the behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling godot_cast_shape_3d.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is intended for 3D raycast queries, which suggests the primary use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or what scenarios are better served by shape casting or other physics queries. This is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a state-changing but non-destructive operation. The description adds that it focuses the Inspector dock, which is a UI effect, but it doesn't disclose any potential side effects like changing the active scene or requiring a specific main_screen. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and destination, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly complete. It covers the primary effect, and the schema fills in parameter details like the node path and optional main_screen. Minor gap: no explicit statement about viewport focus, though the schema's node_path description mentions 'viewport.' Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even though schema_description_coverage is reported as 0%, the actual input schema includes detailed descriptions for both node_path and main_screen. The tool description itself does not mention parameters, but the schema carries that burden, so the description doesn't need to compensate. It neither adds nor detracts from parameter clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is specific and action-oriented: 'Select node in scene tree and focus in Inspector dock.' It clearly identifies the verb (select/focus), the resource (node in scene tree), and the destination (Inspector dock). This differentiates it from siblings like godot_set_editor_selection, which may only alter selection without focusing the Inspector.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_set_editor_selection or godot_get_selected_nodes. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or excluded cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned content but says nothing about network access, latency, or potential failures when reaching the Godot Asset Library. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Retrieve'), names the resource, and lists the key data categories. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only lookup tool, the description covers what the tool returns and identifies the source library. The output schema and parameter descriptions fill in response format details. The main omissions are guidance on when to prefer this over search/install siblings and any external network dependency, but these are secondary for a correctly invoked tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters: asset_id (format and example) and response_format (markdown/json choices). The description adds little beyond the schema, though the phrase 'download metadata' gives minor context to what asset details include. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('an asset from the Godot Asset Library'), and enumerates what is returned: full details, previews, description, and download metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_search_asset_library or godot_install_asset_package.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for fetching details once an asset_id is already known, nor does it compare with godot_search_asset_library or godot_install_asset_package. Usage context is only implicit from the verb 'Retrieve' and the required asset_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), so the description's burden is reduced. The description adds the 'built-in' scoping, which is useful, but says nothing about behavior such as what happens for unknown classes or how the markdown/json response is structured. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence, exactly one verb plus its object and scope. Every word earns its place, and the annotated title 'Get Engine Documentation' provides a useful alternative label. Nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, idempotent lookup tool with an output schema that defines markdown/json response options, the definition is essentially complete. The only minor gap is that the description never clarifies that this covers the built-in engine API only, rather than project or script members, so the agent must rely on the 'built-in' word for that boundary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, the visible schema actually documents all parameters well: query includes concrete examples, category lists its filter options, and response_format explains itself. Since the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden, the description doesn't need to repeat it, and it doesn't, which keeps it clean. Score is baseline 3 because the description itself adds no parameter-level information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is explicit: 'Fetch built-in documentation for classes, methods, and properties.' It states a specific verb (fetch), a specific resource (built-in documentation), and the scope of what can be looked up. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the nearby sibling 'godot_get_class_info', which would push it to a 5, but the verb and scope make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: when you need Godot API reference for classes, methods, or properties, this is the tool. The 'query' schema parameter gives rich examples that reinforce the intended input. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or any mention of alternatives like godot_get_class_info or godot_lsp_query, so the agent has to infer the right time to reach for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns dock positions and open main screens, which is useful for setting expectations. However, it doesn't add further detail (e.g., no mention of scoping limitations or that it excludes certain layout aspects). The description adds modest value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy or filler. It communicates the essence efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It states the purpose and scope clearly. A minor gap is not referencing the setter for contrast, but this isn't essential for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter include_open_scenes is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Whether to include currently open scene tabs in the editor response.'). The tool description itself does not mention this parameter, but since the schema covers it adequately, the description doesn't need to repeat it. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Query') and names the exact resource ('active editor dock positions and open main screens'). It clearly distinguishes this getter from the sibling godot_set_editor_layout and other query tools by stating what data it retrieves. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling setter (godot_set_editor_layout) or any exclusions like 'use this instead of inspecting via other means.' An agent must infer that this is the read counterpart. No context is provided about typical scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'declared or inherited' distinction, which is useful context about what signals are included. However, it does not disclose behavior around node existence, stale nodes, or whether the node must be selected in the editor. Given annotations cover the core behavioral guarantees, a moderate score is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown here) and annotations that cover safety. The description explains the core purpose and scope. It could mention that the node must be live/active in the current scene, but the parameter schema already provides examples of valid node paths. Overall, the information is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (node_path and include_inherited), covering their purpose and examples. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (despite the context signal claiming 0%), the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Query') with a clear resource ('signals') and scope ('declared or inherited on a live node'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like godot_get_signal_connections (which handles connections, not declarations) and godot_connect_signal. The phrasing is unambiguous and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as godot_get_signal_connections or godot_connect_signal, nor any conditions that would favor one over the other. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and description, which is insufficient for correct tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does add the key behavioral fact that saving writes the edited scene to disk, which the annotations alone do not fully convey. It does not, however, explain overwrite behavior, failure modes, or whether saving with a new path changes the active scene's path, though the schema covers some of this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a save operation whose parameters and output format are documented in the schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could have mentioned the alternative of saving to a specified path, but the schema's parameter description already covers that scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description itself does not mention either scene_path or response_format. However, the input schema already provides meaningful descriptions for both parameters, including the 'If None, saves active scene in place' behavior, so the description's omission is not a major gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('save') and resource ('currently edited scene') in a way that is distinct from siblings like godot_open_scene or godot_create_scene. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative or call out the difference from similar scene-related tools, so it falls just short of a top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implicitly clear: an agent should call this when it wants to persist the current scene. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions regarding paths or in-place saves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Search' aligns with the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., network dependency, rate limits, or that it returns a list). It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex (nested params object with six fields, output schema present). The description is minimal and does not mention key use-case constraints (e.g., that it requires network access, that results are paginated, or that the default sort is 'updated'). While the schema fills many gaps, the description alone leaves out sufficient context for an agent to know when and how to invoke it appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Context Signal indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the tool description covers none of the parameters. The description gives a general idea of searchable content but offers no guidance on parameters like query, sort_by, category, or max_results. Although the JSON schema itself contains detailed descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate for the reported low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('official Godot Asset Library'), and enumerates the asset types ('plugins, shaders, templates, and tools'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like godot_get_asset_details (which retrieves details) and godot_install_asset_package (which installs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (searching for assets) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer it over godot_get_asset_details or when search is inappropriate. Usage is implicit from the action but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the action (enable/disable) but does not mention side effects such as requiring a project reload, persistence, or potential impact on editor state. The annotations provide minimal safety info (readOnly=false, destructive=false) but no additional detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple toggle but lacks information about expected behavior, such as whether the plugin list is refreshed, or any output beyond success/failure. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned, so the agent may be uncertain about return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters 'plugin_name' or 'enabled'. The schema does include descriptions, but the coverage is indicated as 0%, meaning the description fails to compensate. An agent would need to inspect the schema to understand what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'editor plugin', making it unambiguous. It distinguishes from get_plugins by indicating a mutation, and no other sibling tool does the same action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you need to toggle a plugin's enabled state) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like godot_get_plugins. It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or related actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the useful behavioral detail that changes persist to the project.godot file, which is beyond what the annotations reveal. It also conveys an upsert-like semantics ('Write or update') consistent with the idempotentHint annotation, though it doesn't describe validation or runtime effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries useful meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward config-write operation, the description plus annotations and schema provide enough context to call the tool correctly. The output schema is present, so return value details are covered. The main omission is usage differentiation, but that doesn't block a correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the nested schema documents name format, allowed value types, and response_format. Since the schema covers the semantics well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Write or update') and a clear resource ('a configuration setting in project.godot'), making the tool's function immediately identifiable. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling godot_get_project_settings, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that reading settings should go through godot_get_project_settings, nor does it explain any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description should clarify destructive or mutating actions. It mentions 'generate' but does not specify whether existing files are overwritten, whether it creates directories, or any side effects. It does not add behavioral context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more descriptive but is efficient for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex input schema with nested objects (DialogueNode, DialogueOption) and an output schema. The description is minimal; it doesn't mention the file format options, node structure, or examples. However, the schema provides thorough structure. Still, given the tool's complexity, the description could provide more guidance on usage, such as when to use 'tres' vs 'json' or how dialogue nodes link.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning descriptions for parameters (resource_path, dialogue_nodes, format) are absent. However, the schema already provides detailed descriptions (e.g., format default 'json', resource_path example, dialogue_nodes description). The description itself does not add parameter information, but the schema covers it. Given the schema coverage is effectively 100% via schema descriptions, baseline 3 applies, but description adds nothing; however, the schema already is rich. I give 5 because the description is not needed for parameter understanding; the schema carries the weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (generate) and resource (branching dialogue JSON / Resource files). It is specific enough to distinguish from other Godot tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when creating branching dialogue resources. However, it does not provide explicit conditions for when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., using a visual editor or modifying existing dialogue files). Some guidance is inferred from the tool name, but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates a write operation and the script-file/class-extends behavior. It does not disclose what happens if `path` already exists, nor the attach-to-node side effect implied by `attach_to_node`, and the annotations provide no further safety detail beyond non-read-only status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates target resource, action, and the key creation behavior without wasting tokens.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers the parameters and an output schema appears to exist, so return-value details do not need to be restated. The remaining gap is that the tool description does not clarify the create-vs-update behavior or flag when the agent should prefer adjacent script tools, making it usable but slightly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds semantic context for the `inherits` parameter via 'class extends' and for the generated script nature via 'template code'. It leaves `path`, `content`, `attach_to_node`, and `response_format` to the schema, though the nested schema descriptions are reasonably detailed once the `$ref` is expanded.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new GDScript file'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling create/attach tools by emphasizing a script file with template code and class extends, so an agent can differentiate it from tools like `godot_create_node`, `godot_create_scene`, or `godot_attach_script`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use it when a new GDScript file needs to be created. However, it gives no explicit when-vs-alternatives guidance, such as when to use `godot_validate_script`, `godot_attach_script`, or `godot_get_node_script_info`, and it does not mention whether existing scripts should be updated with this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the specific data it retrieves (bone hierarchies, transforms, etc.), which goes beyond the generic read-only hint. It does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single succinct sentence, front-loaded with the verb and specific data types. Every word is informative, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It is an excellent example of concise writing for a tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple inspection tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The output schema covers return format, and annotations cover safety. The description clearly states what is queried. The only gap is the absence of usage context, but that is handled under usage guidelines. Overall, nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The description does not mention the 'skeleton_node_path' parameter at all, nor does it explain how to specify the target node. The schema provides a minimal description, but the description adds no value beyond that, leaving the agent without additional guidance on this critical parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Query') and the resource ('bone hierarchies, rest poses, transforms, and socket names'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like godot_setup_inverse_kinematics or godot_configure_bone_attachment, which are for modification, not inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For instance, it does not note that it should be used when the agent needs skeletal data that godot_get_node might not expose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context that the node must already exist and that the operation targets the active scene, but it does not disclose persistence behavior, undo behavior, or what happens if a property is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the action, target, and scope without any redundant filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description plus schema covers the core requirements: node path and a dictionary of properties. Still, for a mutation tool with many specialized sibling configuration tools, it would be stronger to mention whether changes persist, require saving, or affect the scene immediately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides clear descriptions for node_path and properties, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, the description adds no extra meaning about property naming conventions, valid values, or examples, which would be useful since 'properties' is a free-form dictionary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('properties on an existing node in the active scene'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like godot_create_node, godot_delete_node, and godot_get_node. It also narrows scope with 'existing' and 'active scene', which prevents confusing it with creation or scene-level operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: modify properties of an existing node in the current scene. However, there is no explicit guidance on when this tool should be preferred over alternatives such as godot_set_shader_param, godot_apply_theme_override, or godot_configure_* tools, and no when-not-to-use exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Replace current editor node selection,' which clearly indicates a mutation of editor state. However, annotations mark readOnlyHint=false (implying a write) and destructiveHint=false (implying not destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations imply, such as that selection is 'replaced' rather than merely set. No contradiction, but limited additional insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary verb and object, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Perfectly sized for the information it needs to convey.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that sets selection, the description is sufficient for basic understanding. It doesn't mention side effects like what happens to the Inspector or Scene Tree, but the parameters hint at inspection behavior. Given that there is an output schema and the tool is small, the description is adequate but could mention that selection is editor-wide or scene-specific, which is covered by the parameter description. Missing some contextual nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself includes detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'List of node paths...', 'Whether to clear existing editor selection...'). The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. However, the description's 'Replace' implies that clear_previous defaults to true, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description briefly reinforces parameter intent, nudging it to 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Replace current editor node selection.' uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('editor node selection') that precisely conveys the tool's function. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like godot_set_editor_selection or godot_get_selected_nodes by emphasizing the action of replacing the current selection, which is clear and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g., godot_set_editor_selection) or conditions for when this tool is preferred. The sibling list includes many tools that might interact with nodes, but without explicit exclusions or scenarios, the agent must infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating tool (readOnlyHint=false), so the description's relationship to that is consistent. The description adds 'active node' and 'GDScript' context but does not disclose what happens if a script is already attached, whether attaching replaces the existing script, or that the operation is not idempotent. It is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence states the entire scope of the operation without fluff. Every word in 'Attach or detach a GDScript to/from an active node' earns its place, and it is immediately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The definition is largely complete for a simple two-mode action, especially because the annotations and schema cover safety, read-only vs mutating, and parameter semantics. The main gap is not providing a caveat about non-idempotent behavior or what happens when a node already has a script, but this is a minor issue for this operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description itself contributes no additional parameter guidance beyond the schema. However, the input schema's nested property descriptions do explain that node_path is the target node, script_path null or empty detaches, and initial_properties sets export values after attachment. Since the schema already carries the semantic weight, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Attach or detach') and identifies the resource ('a GDScript') and target ('an active node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_script, validate_script, or get_node_script_info. Even though the tool name only mentions 'attach', the description clearly expands the scope to also cover detachment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: you use this when you need to associate or disassociate a GDScript from an active scene node. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no prerequisites, and does not point to related tools such as godot_create_script or godot_validate_script for creating or checking scripts first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no details about side effects, persistence, or default behavior beyond the schema's parameter options. It is not misleading but adds limited behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a configuration tool with a detailed schema. It does not explain return values, but given the tool's nature and existing schema, this is not a significant gap. It might benefit from mentioning that settings are applied to the project, but it is not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides complete descriptions for all parameters, so the tool description adds little new meaning. It gives a high-level grouping but does not introduce details beyond the schema's existing per-parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Tune' and names the key resources (anti-aliasing, shadow quality, V-Sync, upscaling), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like godot_configure_particles or godot_configure_environment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what it does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. It implies usage by listing the settings, but lacks conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns the 'complete' hierarchy and includes effect chains, which gives some context about the result scope but does not disclose additional behavior beyond what annotations imply. With strong annotation coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extra words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope without repetition or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is an output schema (so return values are documented), a single boolean parameter with a schema description, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to call correctly. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but for a simple read-only query tool, the description suffices. A small deduction for not mentioning when to use this over modification tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'include_effects' with a clear description ('Whether to include effect chain details for each audio bus'), so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The tool description does not add anything about the parameter, but it is not required to. Baseline 3 is given because the schema covers it fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Query') and a clear resource ('complete AudioServer bus hierarchy and effect chains'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_configure_audio_bus (which modifies) and godot_set_bus_effect (which sets effects on a bus). An agent can immediately understand this is an inspection tool for audio layout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The verb 'Query' implies it is for inspection, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use it versus modification tools like configure_audio_bus. There is no alternative routing or when-not guidance. The purpose is clear, but the usage context is implied rather than stated, which is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds little beyond the core behavior; for example, behavior on unresolved UIDs or whether resolution is project-scoped is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One direct, concise sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded and the input/output relationship is immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup with one well-documented parameter and an output schema. It does not describe edge cases like missing or malformed UIDs, which would be the main gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The uid parameter is named descriptively in the schema and the schema gives example uid:// strings. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the overall purpose of the parameter is clear from the sentence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the verb, resource, and output clearly: take a uid:// identifier and return its file path. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like godot_get_uid and other file-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: when you have a UID and need the corresponding file path. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention the inverse sibling godot_get_uid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this tool compiles and checks for errors, but it does not reveal additional behavioral details such as whether the validation mutates project state or how errors are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets to the point immediately. There is no redundant wording, and the core action and resource are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only validation tool with rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly conveys the purpose and relies on structured fields for safety and return details; the main missing piece is explicit alternative guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool-level description does not add much parameter-level meaning. However, the input schema's property descriptions do cover shader_code, shader_path, and response_format, so an agent still has enough information to invoke the tool correctly with either inline code or a .gdshader file path.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a concrete operation ('compile and check') and a concrete resource ('Godot Shader Language code'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like godot_validate_script, which operate on a different resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied: validating GDShader code for compilation errors. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as godot_validate_script, nor does it give guidance on inline code vs file-based validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description 'Remove a node' aligns with that. It does not add extra side-effect information, but it is consistent with the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise phrase with no unnecessary words, fully conveying the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists but there is no description of the return value or effects after deletion. For a simple delete operation, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for both parameters (node_path and response_format), so the description adds no additional parameter details. Baseline score applies as schema coverage is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (a node from the active scene tree), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_create_node or godot_modify_node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: it should be used when deleting a node from the scene. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is self-evident for this common operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Query' wording is consistent with that. It adds the useful context that data comes from export_presets.cfg, but does not describe return structure or edge cases. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and source file with no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only query with no parameters and an output schema available, the description is fully sufficient. The agent knows exactly what data is being queried and where it comes from, and annotations cover side-effect safety.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool effectively has no meaningful parameters—the input schema is an empty params object. The description does not need to explain parameter details because there are none to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Query') and a clear resource ('export presets defined in export_presets.cfg'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like godot_get_project_settings or godot_get_version because it names the exact configuration file and data being read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does; the agent must infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is transparent about the read-only nature (discovering plugins) and adds the specific path res://addons/. The annotation readOnlyHint already indicates safety, so this is consistent and informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple discovery tool, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies what it does and where. No output schema is given for return values, so no need to elaborate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the only parameter (enabled_only) with a clear description. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Discover), the resource (installed editor plugins), and the location (res://addons/), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when specifically needing only enabled plugins or when to use other plugin management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., return format, error handling) beyond the basic query intent, offering minimal added value over annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundancy or extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple read query with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. The single parameter is self-explanatory via the schema. The description is complete for the tool's scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter with a clear description ('Whether to include key node properties...'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the tool description does not add further parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: querying paths of selected nodes. It is easily distinguished from siblings like godot_get_node (single node) and godot_list_nodes (all nodes) without needing to inspect schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The purpose is clear, but usage guidance is implicit and relies on the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'auto-plugin registration' as an extra behavioral detail, but doesn't disclose potential side effects like file overwriting, network dependency, or that it modifies the active project's filesystem. Neutral but not actively misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action (download and install), the target (community asset/plugin package), the destination (active project), and a key behavior (auto-plugin registration). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists programmer. The description explains what the tool does but omits important contextual details: preconditions (an active project must exist), failure modes (network errors, invalid package, overwrite conflicts), and side effects (project file modifications). The mention of 'auto-plugin registration' adds helpful context, but the description doesn't prepare the agent for installation failures or environment requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description does not describe parameters directlyressive; however, the schema provides clear descriptions for each parameter (asset_id, target_dir, download_url, response_format, auto_enable_plugin). The contextual signal shows 0% schema description coverage in the tool description, but the nested input schema itself is well-documented, so the agent can resolve parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'auto-plugin registration' aligns with the auto_enable_plugin parameter, adding slight value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is precise: 'Download and install a community asset or plugin package into the active project, with auto-plugin registration.' It names the specific verb (download/install), the resource (community asset/plugin package), and the context (active project). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like godot_search_asset_package, godot_reimport_asset, and godot_audit_assets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies 'when you need a third-party asset or plugin in the project' but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., godot_audit_assets for inspecting, godot_reimport_asset for reimporting). No exclusion criteria are given, so an agent must infer usage from the name and first line.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it queries autoloads, and the readOnlyHint annotation indicates no side effects. It does not specify return format or error behavior, but annotations already cover safety, so it is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no extra words, directly stating the tool's action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple read-only query with no parameters, the description is complete. An output schema exists for return values, so no need to explain them. Slight lack of mention of dependencies or non-read-only behavior is mitigated by annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (no parameters). Schema coverage is 100% (nothing to cover), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Query' and clearly states the resource 'all registered Autoload singletons'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like godot_set_autoload by its read-only intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., godot_set_autoload). It relies on the tool name and intent, but lacks explicit guidance on selection conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns hierarchy, types, and properties, and that it targets the active scene tree. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and contains only essential information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only listing tool with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could mention the output format or mention that it only works on the active scene (already implied), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of default behavior for depth or root, but those are in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (max_depth, root_path, response_format, include_properties), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (list), the resource (nodes in the active scene tree), and the output scope (hierarchy, types, properties). It distinguishes from siblings like godot_get_node (single node) and godot_find_elements (search) by specifying 'all nodes' and 'active scene tree.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for scene exploration/overview, but does not mention alternatives or mention exclusions like non-active scenes or depth limits. This leaves some ambiguity but is reasonably inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, covering the main behavioral trait. The description does not add extra details like return format or side effects, but the existing annotations meet the basic transparency needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and the target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation, the description is complete. The output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The context of reading tilemap cells is fully conveyed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (node_path and region). The tool description does not add additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states, but the schema coverage is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'TileMapLayer', specifying that it retrieves cell coordinates and atlas coords. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'godot_set_tilemap_cells' which writes cells.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a read-only operation through the word 'Read', which is appropriate for getting tilemap cell data. It does not explicitly contrast with the setter tool, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately reflects the tool's read-only behavior as indicated by the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It adds useful context by specifying the exact data being queried, which goes beyond the generic annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It omits unnecessary details and demonstrates good structure by listing the exact information returned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Since an output schema exists (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not explain return values. The tool's purpose and parameter are fully covered, and the description provides sufficient information for an agent to decide when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for the single parameter 'extended_info' fully explains its meaning, so the tool description adds no new parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'limits and capabilities' aligns with the parameter's purpose but does not enhance it. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Query), the specific resource (GPU RenderingDevice), and the information it retrieves (device name, vendor, limits, capabilities). This unambiguously distinguishes it from other Godot inspection tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys a clear use case (querying GPU RenderingDevice details) without explicitly mentioning alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool when GPU info is needed, though it lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![godot-engine-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mcintalmo/godot-engine-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mcintalmo/godot-engine-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![godot-engine-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mcintalmo/godot-engine-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mcintalmo/godot-engine-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mcintalmo/godot-engine-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server