godot_list_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns hierarchy, types, and properties, and that it targets the active scene tree. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect without contradicting annotations.

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 main action and contains only essential information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could mention the output format or mention that it only works on the active scene (already implied), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of default behavior for depth or root, but those are in the schema.

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 descriptions for all parameters (max_depth, root_path, response_format, include_properties), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (list), the resource (nodes in the active scene tree), and the output scope (hierarchy, types, properties). It distinguishes from siblings like godot_get_node (single node) and godot_find_elements (search) by specifying 'all nodes' and 'active scene tree.'

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for scene exploration/overview, but does not mention alternatives or mention exclusions like non-active scenes or depth limits. This leaves some ambiguity but is reasonably inferable.

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