godot_inspect_rendering_device

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

The description accurately reflects the tool's read-only behavior as indicated by the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It adds useful context by specifying the exact data being queried, which goes beyond the generic annotations. No contradictions.

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 directly states the purpose. It omits unnecessary details and demonstrates good structure by listing the exact information returned.

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?

Since an output schema exists (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not explain return values. The tool's purpose and parameter are fully covered, and the description provides sufficient information for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 description for the single parameter 'extended_info' fully explains its meaning, so the tool description adds no new parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'limits and capabilities' aligns with the parameter's purpose but does not enhance it. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (Query), the specific resource (GPU RenderingDevice), and the information it retrieves (device name, vendor, limits, capabilities). This unambiguously distinguishes it from other Godot inspection tools.

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 conveys a clear use case (querying GPU RenderingDevice details) without explicitly mentioning alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool when GPU info is needed, though it lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools.

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