godot_focus_node

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.