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 and discloses key behavioral traits: it specifies the return format ('function name, parameters with types, and return type'), emphasizes the coordinate system ('IMPORTANT: Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates'), and implies a read-only operation without contradictions. However, it lacks details on error handling or performance.

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 usage guidelines, all in two concise sentences with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy 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 largely complete: it explains the purpose, return format, coordinate system, and usage context. A minor gap is the lack of error or edge-case information, but it suffices for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get function signature and parameter information') and resource ('at a call site'), distinguishing it from siblings like gdscript_hover or gdscript_definition by focusing on call-site parameter details rather than general documentation or definition lookup.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance with 'Use when you need to know the correct parameters for a function call,' which clearly indicates when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like gdscript_definition (for definitions) or gdscript_hover (for hover information).

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