scripts

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

The description details each action's effect (e.g., 'write: replace entire file', 'delete'), which complements the annotations (destructiveHint=true). It adds context beyond the annotations by specifying that write replaces the file entirely and that actions have required vs. optional params.

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 well-organized with a compact action list and parameter conventions. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded; the first sentence 'GDScript file CRUD.' is good, but the following list could be more streamlined.

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?

The description covers all actions, their parameters, and file-path conventions. It lacks details on return values (no output schema) and error handling, but for a CRUD tool, the provided information is sufficient for correct usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description still adds value by detailing required vs. optional parameters per action, explaining the script_path convention (relative to project root), and providing default value info (e.g., extends='Node' for create).

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 'GDScript file CRUD' and lists specific actions (create, read, write, attach, list, delete), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The sibling tools (e.g., animation, audio, config) target different resources, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 through its action list but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over others or provide exclusion criteria. For example, no mention of when to use scripts vs. resources or scenes for script-related tasks.

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