godot_get_texture_info

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Query' is consistent. The description adds value by listing the specific properties returned (dimensions, format, VRAM compression, mipmaps), but does not explain errors or edge cases. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loads the core action and result. No filler words, but it lacks structural formatting like bullets. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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 one-parameter, read-only query tool with an output schema defines return values, the description is reasonably complete. It lists the queried attributes and the schema covers the parameter. Missing are explicit error cases or format details, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 no information about the texture_path parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The input schema itself includes a clear description of the parameter, so the description adds no meaning. Given low coverage and no compensation, the score is low.

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 clear verb ('Query') and specific resource attributes ('dimensions, format, VRAM compression, and mipmaps'), distinguishing it from most sibling tools through both name and content. It does not explicitly call out a sibling, but the purpose is 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving texture metadata, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like godot_audit_assets or godot_get_node. The context is clear from the name, but exclusions are absent.

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