Godette

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. For a tool that retrieves dependencies, information about whether it's read-only, safe, or has performance implications would be helpful but is missing.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the core functionality.

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 the tool's complexity (retrieving dependencies for a scene), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits and return values. The schema covers the single parameter well, but overall completeness is limited, making it just sufficient but with clear gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'scene' parameter documented as 'Path to the .tscn file'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema provides complete coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get all external resources, instanced scenes, and script dependencies of a scene.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('scene dependencies'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'find_resource', 'find_scene_instances', or 'get_resource_references', which might have overlapping functionality. This makes it clear but not fully distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. With sibling tools like 'find_resource' and 'get_resource_references' that might handle similar tasks, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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