scene_validate

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

Discloses that connections are stored as unvalidated strings and that a stale one fails silently until runtime. Describes three types of checks performed. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false) are consistent and description adds behavioral context.

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?

Three concise pieces: purpose, return value, and usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 one required parameter with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return type and rationale. The tool's behavior is fully described for the agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter 'files' described as 'Scene paths, res:// or filesystem'. The description does not add further semantic details about the parameter beyond the schema, which already covers its meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks scene signal connections for validity, specifying the exact problems it returns (missing handlers, no script, invalid nodes). Distinct from sibling tools which focus on GDScript editing or debugging.

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?

Explicitly gives two concrete scenarios when to call: after editing a .tscn or after renaming/removing a signal handler. Explains why (stale strings cause runtime errors). No alternative tool needed.

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