godotlens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it notifies the LSP about a deletion, returns a confirmation, and ensures the LSP updates its analysis and clears diagnostics. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or performance considerations, which prevents a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and effects. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and return, the second specifies when to call, and the third explains the outcome. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and behavioral effects. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of the 'confirmation') and error scenarios, which could be important for an agent to handle robustly.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly defining the 'file' parameter as an absolute or relative path to a deleted .gd file. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 specific action ('Notify Godot's LSP that a file was deleted') and the resource ('.gd file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gdscript_sync_file (which syncs files) or gdscript_diagnostics (which checks for issues). It explicitly mentions the purpose is to update the LSP's analysis after a file deletion.

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 guidance on when to call this tool: 'After deleting a .gd file from disk.' It also explains the reason ('Ensures LSP removes the file from its analysis and clears stale diagnostics'), helping differentiate it from alternatives like gdscript_sync_file, which might be used for file updates rather than deletions.

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