godot_get_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: headless mode returns scene=null, project_path fallback behavior, and performance only being valid via bridge. These disclose important edge cases and parameter-dependent behavior, which is more than the minimal date-range scoping in the calibration example. However, it stops short of describing the complete return structure or potential side effects (though read-only makes that less critical).

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 two sentences: the first states the main purpose and lists contents; the second adds a specific caveat about headless mode. There is zero padding, and every word contributes to understanding. This is exemplary 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It lists the major categories (mode, project, connection, scene snapshot, stats, tool groups, workflows, rules, performance) and notes the headless edge case. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though it does not provide detailed structure or nested field information. Given the tool's complexity, this is a solid overview but not exhaustive.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already fully explains each parameter's meaning and behavior. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema; it only reiterates the headless and bridge nuances already present in the schema descriptions. 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 clearly states the tool returns a comprehensive session panorama, listing specific components (mode, project, connection, scene snapshot, stats, tool groups, workflows, rules, performance). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_list_instances or godot_select_instance, which have more targeted purposes.

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 '减少反复探路' (reduce repeated exploration) implies using this tool to get an overview before diving into more specific operations. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions are given, but the context is sufficient.

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