analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is static analysis with zero Godot dependency, it labels blind spots honestly (runtime dynamic signal names and autoload-to-autoload connections are invisible), and it indicates that declaration/emit sources are labeled separately. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: core positioning first, then the two action modes, then the honest blind-spot note. There is no filler, each sentence carries operational meaning, and the action-based structure makes it easy for an agent to parse.

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-mode static analysis tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough operational context: it defines each action, lists the relevant parameter dimensions, and describes what the results cover. The remaining gap is a lack of explicit description of output shape/truncation behavior at the semantic level, but the schema already documents limit/default, and the blind-spot statement prevents most false expectations.

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 all parameters (100% coverage), so the bar is at baseline 3. The description adds value by connecting actions to parameter semantics and outputs: signal mode selects connectors/emitters/listeners; script mode references; scene mode connections/scripts/instantiation sites. This gives the agent real semantic grounding beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 concrete verbs and resources: signal_map lists all project signal connections, impact_check evaluates the impact surface before a change. It enumerates exactly what is covered (.tscn [connection] declarations, .gd connect/emit references) and distinguishes the two modes, making it easy for an agent to tell this tool apart from generic 'analysis' and sibling signal/project/runtime tools.

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 gives clear context for each action: signal_map for a full signal-connection panorama, impact_check for pre-change assessment, with three explicit scenarios (signal, script, scene). It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, and it doesn't state when not to use this static analysis in favor of runtime or validation tools, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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