Godette

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns a 'compact structure' by default and that it reflects runtime changes, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'compact structure' entails (e.g., JSON format). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and key behavioral trait (runtime reflection), and the second sentence adds crucial output information (default compact structure). Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it covers purpose and distinguishes from siblings, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, format specifics) and output structure beyond 'compact structure'. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no extra context on 'includeProperties' or 'maxDepth'). Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('live scene tree'), and source ('from the running Godot project'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_scene_tree' by specifying 'live' (runtime) vs. likely static/editor scene tree, and mentions the default return format ('compact structure').

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 implies usage context ('runtime-added/removed nodes') and distinguishes from 'get_scene_tree' by specifying 'live', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_scene_tree' or 'get_runtime_state'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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