Godette

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what data is returned without behavioral details. It doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid file paths), performance characteristics, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). 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. Every word earns its place - specifying the file type (.tscn) and exact data components returned. No wasted words or 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?

For a read operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what data is returned but doesn't describe the return format or structure. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail about the tree representation would be helpful for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (path to .tscn file, depth limits, node limits). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get the scene tree structure') and resource ('.tscn file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact data it retrieves (node types, scripts, groups, hierarchy). It's distinct from tools like 'get_live_scene_tree' or 'get_node_properties'.

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 analyzing .tscn file structure, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_live_scene_tree' (runtime vs file-based) or 'find_node' (searching vs full tree). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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