godot_lsp_query

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already signal safety. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond a bare restatement of protocol. No contradiction, but no added context either — e.g., it doesn't say queries need an open/valid GDScript file or that it's non-mutating.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, no padding. But under-specification means the conciseness isn't serving comprehension — a single sentence that doesn't mention the four query types.

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?

Despite rich schema and an output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing: no mention of query types beyond the schema, no example, no guidance on GDScript constraints. The description alone cannot support correct invocation.

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 well-documents all params (file_path, line, character with defaults, and query_type enum with explanations), so the description has no burden there. However the description adds nothing about how parameters interact — e.g., that symbol_name only applies to 'symbols' or that line/character apply to definition/references/hover. Description contributes zero semantics.

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 'Query LSP files using the Language Server Protocol' is near-tautological — 'LSP' already stands for Language Server Protocol, so the second clause adds nothing. It fails to state that this tool performs semantic queries (symbols, definition, references, hover) against GDScript files, and doesn't differentiate from sibling godot_lsp_rename which also uses LSP.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like godot_lsp_rename, godot_get_node_script_info, or godot_evaluate_expression among the siblings. No mention of valid use cases (e.g., symbol lookup, go-to-definition, hover info) or when not to use it.

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