game_find_nodes_by_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the core purpose. It does not mention whether the search is recursive, whether it includes hidden nodes, what the return format is, or that it starts from the rootPath (default "/root"). These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent would need to predict the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, delivering the key action and target in a single clear sentence. It contains no filler, though it could add a bit more useful detail without becoming bloated.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient to make a call. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify return shape or traversal behavior, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent selecting and interpreting results.

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 both parameters: className and rootPath. The description adds little beyond naming the class-type search focus, which is the baseline expectation. It does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 operation ('Find all nodes') and the resource ('of a specific class type in the running game'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from siblings like game_get_nodes_in_group because it searches by class rather than group, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a caller needs every node of a given class in the running scene tree. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, such as game_get_nodes_in_group for groups or game_get_scene_tree for a broader view, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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