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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires the project to be running, what format the runtime state returns, if there are rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain what 'runtime state' entails and any prerequisites (e.g., project must be running). It's complete enough for basic use but lacks depth for complex 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 the 'nodePath' parameter with examples. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'runtime state' includes or how node paths are structured. With high schema coverage, 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('runtime state of a specific node path in the running scene tree'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_live_scene_tree' (which retrieves the entire tree) by focusing on a specific node path, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 for inspecting a node path in a running scene, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_node_properties' or 'get_live_scene_tree'. It mentions 'Omit for root' in the schema description, which provides some context, but no explicit guidance on when-not or named alternatives is given.

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