signal

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it only affects the current execution context and restricting emit parameters to basic types. While annotations already indicate no read-only or destructive behavior, the description clarifies the non-persistent nature, which is valuable for an agent.

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 compact and well-structured, listing actions clearly and adding a single guiding note about persistence. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With 10 parameters but no output schema, the description competently covers the tool's behavior and constraints. It could be richer (e.g., explaining flags or node_path usage), but the schema fills most gaps and the description provides a solid high-level overview.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, including action-specific details like 'emit: 信号参数（仅 string/number/bool/null）'. The description largely recaps the schema without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 identifies the tool as '信号操作' (signal operations) and enumerates the four specific actions (connect/disconnect/emit/list). It distinguishes itself from persistent .tscn editing by noting it only affects the current runtime execution context, setting it apart from sibling 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?

It explicitly states '如需持久化，请编辑 .tscn 文件' (for persistence, edit .tscn file), providing a clear when-not-to-use and a specific alternative. The '运行时操作' (runtime operation) phrase signals the appropriate context for use.

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