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 that the tool returns a 'workspace edit with all changes needed' (output behavior) and uses 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' (important behavioral trait). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like breaking references or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 key behavioral details and workflow guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second specifies output and coordinate system, and the third provides usage workflow. No 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the output ('workspace edit'), coordinate system, and workflow. However, it lacks details on error conditions or what the workspace edit contains, leaving some context gaps for a tool that modifies files.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain symbol selection or rename constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Rename a symbol across all files in the project') and distinguishes it from siblings like gdscript_references (for preview) and gdscript_sync_files (for refresh). It specifies the scope ('all files') and resource ('symbol'), making the 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 explicitly provides a workflow with alternatives: use gdscript_references to preview impact first, then gdscript_rename to rename, and gdscript_sync_files to refresh LSP state. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and distinguishes it from related tools.

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