godotlens-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns a list of definition locations, uses zero-based coordinates, and is more efficient for batch calls. However, it doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 highly concise and well-structured: three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, critical detail (zero-based coordinates), and usage benefit (efficiency). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy 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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch processing with nested parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, coordinates, and efficiency. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of definition locations) and error cases, which could be important for an agent to handle responses correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'positions' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only emphasizing 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' which is already implied in the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get definitions' and the resource 'multiple symbol positions', specifying it returns definition locations. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'gdscript_definition' by noting it's a batch version, making the purpose specific and 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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states 'More efficient than calling gdscript_definition repeatedly', indicating when to use this tool versus the alternative sibling. It also implies usage for batch processing of multiple positions, though it doesn't explicitly state 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.