godot_get_signal_connections

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the read-only safety profile is already covered and the verb 'Query' is consistent with it — no contradiction. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as what happens when node_path is invalid, whether an absent signal_name returns everything, or whether disconnected nodes produce empty results. With the annotation baseline in place, this is acceptable but nothing more.

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?

Seven words with zero filler: verb, scope, and resource are all front-loaded in the first sentence. Nothing repeats what the title or schema already states, and there is no extraneous prose. For a simple query tool this is the ideal size.

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?

An output schema exists, so the absence of return-value documentation is fine. The remaining deficiencies are the missing pointer to godot_get_node_signals and the implicit 'active scene' scope, which only appears in the node_path description. For a straightforward read-only inspection tool this is adequate, but the description alone would not fully orient an agent navigating the large sibling list.

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 itself documents every parameter well: node_path is required, incoming/outgoing default to true, and signal_name is an optional null filter. The tool description's 'incoming and outgoing' phrasing aligns with the two boolean flags, which is mildly helpful, but it adds no explanation of the node path or filtering semantics. The CONTEXT signal reports 0% coverage; against that standard the description only partially compensates via directionality, so 3 is the correct baseline.

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 uses a specific verb + resource: 'Query all incoming and outgoing signal connections.' The incoming/outgoing phrasing conveys that the tool inspects connections in both directions, which narrows its scope. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling godot_get_node_signals, so an agent may still need to compare schemas to distinguish 'signal connections' from 'node signals.'

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 single-sentence description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes godot_get_node_signals, godot_connect_signal, and godot_get_node_script_info, and the description does not explain whether to reach for this tool when inspecting a particular connection, debugging a missing signal, or verifying link wiring. No when/when-not context is provided.

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