Godette

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the dual implementation (LSP-first, fallback method), warns about potential missed references in specific file types (.tscn), and implies mutation (renaming). However, it doesn't detail error handling, permissions, or rate limits, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and warnings in a single, efficient sentence. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is quite complete: it explains the tool's behavior, fallback mechanisms, and limitations. It could slightly improve by hinting at the return value or success criteria, but it covers most contextual needs effectively.

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 fully documents all parameters (file, line, character, newName). The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Rename a symbol') and scope ('across the entire project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_symbol' (which only locates) or 'replace_content' (which is more general). It precisely defines the verb and resource.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (for renaming symbols across the project) and provides clear alternatives/fallbacks (LSP vs. find_symbol + replace_content), including warnings about limitations (e.g., missed references in non-script files). This guides the agent on tool selection and edge cases.

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