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 behaviors: it triggers LSP refresh for diagnostics, returns diagnostics (errors/warnings), and has an optional content parameter to avoid disk reads. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or performance implications, which are minor 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 well-structured and concise, with three sentences that each add value: purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter optimization. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is no wasted text, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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 (syncing files for diagnostics), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of diagnostics) and potential errors, which are minor omissions in this context.

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 both parameters ('file' and 'content'). The description adds some context by explaining that 'content' is optional and used to 'avoid reading from disk,' but this is minimal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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: 'Notify Godot's LSP that a file was modified and get updated diagnostics.' It specifies the action (notify and get diagnostics), the target (Godot's LSP), and the resource (.gd files). It distinguishes from siblings like 'gdscript_diagnostics' by focusing on syncing after modifications rather than general diagnostic retrieval.

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 usage guidelines: 'WHEN TO CALL: After using Edit/Write tools to modify a .gd file. The LSP does not watch files, so you must call this to refresh analysis.' It explains when to use it (post-modification) and why (LSP lacks file watching), and mentions an alternative approach (passing content directly) without naming specific sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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