godotlens-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('symbol tree with name, kind, and line number') and the tool's non-destructive, read-only nature (implied by 'List' and 'explore'), but lacks details on error handling, file format requirements, or performance considerations.

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 in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds clear value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, return format, and usage context. However, it could be slightly enhanced by mentioning potential errors or limitations, such as handling non-existent files or unsupported formats.

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 the single parameter 'file' with its description. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid paths or file constraints, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 ('List all symbols') and resource ('in a file'), enumerates the symbol types (classes, functions, variables, signals, enums), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its exploratory role versus detail-oriented tools like gdscript_hover or gdscript_definition.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to understand the structure of a file before making changes') and provides a workflow with alternatives ('gdscript_symbols to explore, then gdscript_hover or gdscript_definition for details'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools.

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