game_get_nodes_in_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation, which is useful context, but the description does not mention the return format (e.g., node paths, names, references), behavior for nonexistent groups, or whether it reads from the current scene tree or the entire running game.

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 declarative sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and is front-loaded with the core action and scope.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately states what it does, but it leaves the return value unspecified. An agent would benefit from knowing whether the tool returns node paths, node names, or references, and any implications for using the results with sibling tools.

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 documents the only parameter 'group' with descriptive examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 (Get), resource (nodes), and filter (belonging to a specific group), which clearly indicates what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like game_get_scene_tree and game_find_nodes_by_class by the group-membership scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need all nodes assigned to a group in the running game. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related tools such as game_manage_group or game_find_nodes_by_class.

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