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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a list of diagnostics with specific fields (line, severity, message), including severity codes (1=Error, etc.). However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance implications, or whether it triggers compilation, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 return details and workflow steps. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies output format, and the third provides usage context. It's efficiently structured without wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the return format (list of diagnostics with fields) and integration into a workflow. It covers the essential context for a diagnostic tool, though it could benefit from mentioning error cases or limitations to be fully complete.

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 already documents the 'files' parameter as a list of paths to .gd files. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as file format constraints or path resolution details, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('compiler errors and warnings for one or more files'), distinguishing it from siblings like gdscript_sync_files (which refreshes files) or gdscript_status (which might check overall status). It explicitly identifies what the tool retrieves, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 workflow guidance: use after editing files and calling gdscript_sync_files to refresh, and before committing to catch issues early. It distinguishes when to use this tool versus alternatives by outlining a sequence, though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives for comparison.

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