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 what the tool retrieves but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), error handling for invalid files, performance characteristics, or output format details. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 and enumerates the symbol types without unnecessary words. Every element (verb, resource, scope, details) 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description adequately covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what the output looks like, error conditions). For a read operation with one parameter, it's minimally viable but could benefit from more completeness around usage and results.

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% with one parameter 'file' documented as 'Path to the .gd file'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as file format requirements or path resolution rules. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'top-level symbol tree for a GDScript file', listing the exact symbol types included (functions, signals, exports, enums, constants). It distinguishes from siblings like get_scene_tree, get_live_scene_tree, or find_symbol by specifying it's for GDScript files and focuses on symbol structure rather than scene nodes or searching.

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 GDScript file structure, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like find_symbol (for specific symbol lookup) or get_scene_tree (for scene hierarchy). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open to interpretation.

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