script-info

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 the tool analyzes and returns structure, implying a read-only operation, but does not detail behavioral aspects like performance, file access, or error handling. The transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a brief alias note and two sentences that convey purpose and usage guidance without any redundant content.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned structural elements (functions, variables, signals, etc.), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. It could mention additional details like line numbers, but this is acceptable.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds contextual value by explaining the tool's purpose but does not provide additional parameter-specific information beyond the schema.

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 analyzes a GDScript and returns its structure (functions, variables, signals, etc.), using precise verb 'Analyzes' and naming the resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'modify_script' by recommending usage before modification.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool before 'modify_script' to understand existing code, providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives beyond 'modify_script'.

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