godot_get_node_signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'declared or inherited' distinction, which is useful context about what signals are included. However, it does not disclose behavior around node existence, stale nodes, or whether the node must be selected in the editor. Given annotations cover the core behavioral guarantees, a moderate score is appropriate.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown here) and annotations that cover safety. The description explains the core purpose and scope. It could mention that the node must be live/active in the current scene, but the parameter schema already provides examples of valid node paths. Overall, the information is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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?

The input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (node_path and include_inherited), covering their purpose and examples. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (despite the context signal claiming 0%), the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Query') with a clear resource ('signals') and scope ('declared or inherited on a live node'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like godot_get_signal_connections (which handles connections, not declarations) and godot_connect_signal. The phrasing is unambiguous and actionable.

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. It does not mention related tools such as godot_get_signal_connections or godot_connect_signal, nor any conditions that would favor one over the other. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and description, which is insufficient for correct tool selection.

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