gdscript_engine_api

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which align with the description's read-only nature. Description adds that the tool provides ground truth from the exact editor build and prevents method invention. No contradictions. Could mention response format or performance implications but acceptable for a documentation lookup.

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?

Two well-structured sentences covering purpose, return type, and usage advice. Front-loads the core function and provides actionable guidance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, the description partially describes return values (signature details and documentation). It lacks details on response format (could be structured or plain text) but is sufficient for an API documentation tool. Context of siblings not needed for completeness.

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 descriptions already clarify each parameter (class_name as engine class name, member as method/property/signal name). Description adds valuable usage guidance: 'Pass member for a specific item; omit it to check a class exists.' This enhances understanding beyond schema alone. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3, extra context justifies 4.

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 tool provides 'authoritative documentation for a Godot ENGINE class or member' from the exact editor build. It specifies return contents (signature with argument names/types/defaults, plus documentation) and distinguishes itself as ground truth versus recalling from memory.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool instead of recalling from memory to prevent inventing non-existent methods. Explains when to omit the 'member' parameter (to check class existence) versus when to pass it (for specific methods/properties/signals). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also provide documentation-like info (e.g., gdscript_hover, gdscript_signature_help).

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