godot_configure_camera

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.