godot_get_node_script_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'inspect' is consistent with that. The description adds a bit of detail about what is inspected (exported properties, methods, constants, signals), which is useful, but it doesn't go beyond the annotation's read-only implication to explain side effects, performance considerations, or what happens if the node has no script.

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, terse sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No redundancy or filler; every word adds meaning about the tool's scope.

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 a one-line description ablout the tool, an output schema exists, and the schema fully documents the single parameterholde. However, the description omits any guidance on how this differs from other introspection tools (class info, documentation, LSP query) and what the return structure looks like. It is adequate but not rich.

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 fully describes the only parameter (node_path), so the description doesn't add meaning. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage (>80%), baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on node_path semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'inspect' and the resource (exported properties, methods, constants, signals of a node's script), which clearly identifies the operation. It is specific about what is inspected, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like godot_get_class_info or godot_get_documentation.

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 such as godot_get_node, godot_get_class_info, godot_get_documentation, or godot_lsp_query. The description provides no context about scenarios where script inspection is appropriate or prerequisites like needing a valid node path.

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