Validate Scene

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation-provided readOnlyHint. It does not disclose what validation actually does, whether it reports a list of errors, whether it depends on the Godot binary, or whether project_path affects behavior. With readOnlyHint present the safety profile is clear, but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 short sentence and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. For a validation tool with multiple sibling tools, a one-line description omits useful context, so this is closer to acceptable brevity than ideal conciseness.

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 that there is an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description does not need to explain return values or non-modification. However, it still lacks any explanation of what validation entails, when validation is appropriate, or how this differs from the nearly identical godot_validate_script sibling. The context is too thin for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the default discovery behavior for project_path. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('validate') and a resource ('scene file'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like read_scene or create_scene. However, it does not explain what validation checks (syntax, references, project settings) or contrast with validate_script, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios such as validating before running a game, comparing to godot_validate_script, or any exclusions. The caller must infer the intended use from the tool name alone.

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