godot_get_documentation

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.