godot_diff_scene

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.