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 the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file modification, error handling), permissions needed, or how it interacts with the 'expectedHash' parameter for safety checks.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary details. 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 the complexity of a file-editing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on success/failure behavior, error conditions, or what happens if the symbol is not found, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate safely.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'symbol' refers to a named entity in GDScript, which is minimal value. 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 action ('Insert content') and target ('after a named symbol in a GDScript file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert_before_symbol' or 'insert_at_line', which would require mentioning the specific positional relationship.

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 such as 'insert_before_symbol' or 'insert_at_line', nor does it mention prerequisites like file existence or symbol validity. It lacks context for decision-making among similar editing tools.

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