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 key behavioral traits: the return format ('Returns: list of reference locations for each position'), coordinate system ('Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates'), and performance characteristics ('More efficient than calling gdscript_references repeatedly'). It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the essential operational behavior well.

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 perfectly structured and concise with four focused sentences. The first states the purpose, the second specifies the return format and coordinate system, the third explains efficiency benefits, and the fourth provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits (return format, coordinate system, efficiency), and distinguishes from siblings. The main gap is the lack of output format details beyond 'list of reference locations,' but given the tool's relatively straightforward batch operation nature, this is a minor omission.

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%, providing complete documentation of the single 'positions' parameter and its nested structure. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that positions correspond to 'symbols' and that the tool handles 'multiple symbols.' This meets the baseline expectation 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 specific action ('Find references for multiple symbols'), resource ('symbols'), and scope ('in a single call'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'gdscript_references' by mentioning it's 'More efficient than calling gdscript_references repeatedly' and designed 'for bulk impact analysis across multiple symbols.'

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 use this tool: 'Use for bulk impact analysis across multiple symbols.' It also clearly states when not to use it (when you need single symbol references) by naming the alternative: 'More efficient than calling gdscript_references repeatedly.' This gives clear context for choosing between these two sibling tools.

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