godot_get_uid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavior beyond the conversion itself—it does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the resource lacks a UID), return format, or side effects. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate for a simple conversion tool that lacks further behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that states the action and outcome with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately clear. Every word earns its place, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks any mention of error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., resource must have a UID), or the nature of the return value. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter details, but the description does not address potential failure modes or clarify the expected output beyond the name. Given the simplicity, a 3 is fair—it is not inadequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 tool description makes no mention of the parameter 'path'. While the input schema provides a clear description with examples (e.g., 'res://scenes/player.tscn'), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is effectively 0% from the tool description's perspective (the description does not compensate), the tool description does not assist an agent in understanding parameter usage. The schema itself is helpful, but the description adds zero value here.

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 ('Convert'), names the exact resource ('resource path'), and specifies the output format ('native Godot uid:// identifier'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like godot_resolve_uid, which likely does the reverse, and other unrelated tools. 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling godot_resolve_uid or any condition that would select this tool over another. The agent is left to infer that this is for path-to-UID conversion, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative is provided.

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