godot_cast_ray_3d

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.