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 adds useful context: it specifies that coordinates are 'ZERO-BASED' and describes the return format ('type signature, documentation string, or description'). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or limitations (e.g., file size constraints), leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by return details and important usage notes. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient for an AI agent 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral notes (zero-based coordinates). However, without an output schema, it could better detail the return structure (e.g., format of 'type signature'), and it lacks error or edge-case information, leaving minor gaps.

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 all parameters (file, line, character) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing 'ZERO-BASED coordinates,' which is implied in the schema's line description but not explicitly stated. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose: 'Get type information and documentation for a symbol at a given position.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('type information and documentation'), and scope ('for a symbol at a given position'), distinguishing it from siblings like gdscript_declaration or gdscript_definition by focusing on hover/type info rather than navigation or editing.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'Use to understand what type a variable is, or what a function returns.' It implies usage for code understanding rather than modification, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as gdscript_signature_help for more detailed function signatures.

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