get_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List every signal declared by a node' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It also discloses the scope (open scene) and the contents of the return (argument types and current connections), which is adequate for a simple query tool.

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 a single sentence that starts with the verb 'List' and contains no extra words. Every part contributes meaningful information, 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns. It mentions signals, argument types, and connections, which covers the essential output. The only notable gap is the node_path format, but this is a minor omission given the intuitive parameter name.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the node_path parameter. It only refers to 'a node' without specifying the expected path format (e.g., relative vs absolute, slash-separated). The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description does not add the necessary detail to fully understand how to provide the path.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'every signal declared by a node in the open scene'. It also specifies the included details ('argument types and current connections'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_signal or watch_signals.

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 phrase 'in the open scene' indicates that the tool operates on the currently active scene, providing some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_signal_connections or analyze_signal_flow. Usage is implied but not clearly stated.

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