signal_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: list filters editor connections by default and can surface them with include_editor, and connect/disconnect are undoable. It also explains the editor_connection_count field to signal hidden connections. Some behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, persistence) are not covered, but the disclosed details are substantive.

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 a one-line purpose, a bullet list of operations, and a concise note on call shape. Every sentence adds value, and the format is scannable and front-loaded.

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 multi-operation tool with a generic schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers all three operations, their parameters, default behavior, undoability, and the result field editor_connection_count. The presence of an output schema (per context signals) helps, but the description alone already provides sufficient operational 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by documenting each operation's parameters: list(path, include_editor=False), connect(path, signal, target, method), and disconnect(path, signal, target, method). It also explains the canonical envelope shape with 'op' and 'params'.

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: 'Signals (Godot's event/observer mechanism) — list, connect, disconnect.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_manage or scene_manage. The three operations are enumerated with clear verbs.

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 strong contextual guidance on how to use each operation, including canonical call shape and compatibility alias. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the focused scope and op-level details make the intended usage clear.

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