godot_get_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description's 'Inspect' aligns with the existing readOnlyHint=true annotation, so there is no contradiction. However, it adds no extra behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey (e.g., it does not state whether it returns an error for a non-existent node or if it triggers any side effects). The annotation covers the key read-only nature, so the description is consistent but not informational.

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 that lists exactly what the tool inspects with no redundant words. It is well-structured and easy to parse, meeting the ideal of brevity and clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope, though it omits any mention of the response_format parameter that could affect output. This is minor since the schema documents it, so overall it is complete for a simple inspection tool.

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 description provides zero coverage of the parameters (node_path, response_format, include_inherited_properties), while the schema itself offers clear descriptions. Since the description's coverage of parameters is 0%, per the rubric it must compensate, but it does not. The schema descriptions exist, but the tool description adds no value for understanding parameters.

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 specifies the action ('Inspect') and the resource ('a specific node'), listing the types of information retrieved (type, script, groups, signals, properties). It unambiguously distinguishes this from more specific node-inspection tools like godot_get_node_signals or godot_get_node_script_info by implying comprehensive inspection.

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 does not mention when to prefer this generic inspection tool over the many specialized sibling tools (e.g., godot_get_node_signals, godot_get_node_script_info). It gives no guidance on selecting between them, leaving the agent to infer based on the listed fields.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.