game_ui_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Set' effects but does not disclose that the action parameter can also perform 'get_info' reads, nor does it mention side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for an unannotated 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 short sentence with no filler, and the verb and target resource are front-loaded. It is highly concise and avoids unnecessary detail, even though it is incomplete in other dimensions.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover action modes and return behavior to be operationally clear. With six parameters, an action string supporting multiple modes, and no mention of what actions like 'get_info' return, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 all parameters and their meanings. The description adds only a high-level grouping of what can be configured (focus, anchors, tooltip, mouse filter) without adding format details, relationships, or action-specific semantics. Baseline 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 ('Set') and resource ('Control') and lists the main properties it affects: focus, anchors, tooltip, and mouse filter. It is distinguishable from sibling UI tools by targeting the Control node type. However, it omits the 'get_info' action and the minSize parameter, so the purpose is not fully complete.

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 'on Control' implies the tool is for Godot Control nodes, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling UI tools such as game_ui_text, game_ui_menu, or game_get_ui, and no exclusions are stated.

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