godotlens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it's a batch operation for efficiency, reads content from disk, and returns diagnostics. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics like timeouts.

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 efficiently structured with three focused sentences: purpose statement, usage guidelines, and behavioral detail. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, and the 'WHEN TO CALL' section is clearly marked.

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 tool with 1 parameter (100% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description provides good context about when to use it, behavioral details, and sibling differentiation. However, without an output schema, it could better explain the 'diagnostics' return value format or structure.

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 'files' parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by specifying '.gd files' and mentioning 'absolute or relative paths' (which the schema already covers). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Batch sync multiple modified files'), the target ('with Godot's LSP'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'gdscript_sync_file' by emphasizing efficiency for multiple files. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 states 'WHEN TO CALL: After modifying multiple .gd files with Edit/Write tools' and provides a direct comparison to the sibling tool 'gdscript_sync_file' ('More efficient than calling gdscript_sync_file repeatedly'). This gives clear context and alternatives.

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