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 describes the return format ('map of file path to symbol tree for each file') and efficiency benefits, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adequately covers core behavior without contradictions.

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 guidance in three efficient sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (batch processing with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides sufficient context on purpose, usage, and return format. However, it lacks details on error cases or performance trade-offs, leaving minor gaps for a fully complete understanding.

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 fully documents the 'files' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as file format constraints or path resolution rules, 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 specific action ('Get symbols from multiple files') and resource ('.gd files'), distinguishing it from its sibling 'gdscript_symbols' by emphasizing batch processing efficiency. It explicitly contrasts with the single-file alternative, 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('More efficient than calling gdscript_symbols repeatedly') and the context ('Use to understand the structure of multiple files at once'), clearly positioning it as the batch alternative to the single-file sibling tool.

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