read_rich_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'List RichTextLabel nodes.' without explaining whether this is read-only, what the return format is, whether it operates on the current scene or the whole project, or any side effects. The read-only implication from the name is not enough.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is too incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It fails to specify what 'list' returns (e.g., node paths, names, nested information), the scope of the listing (current scene vs. all scenes), or any filtering behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the overall usage context is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters 'name' and 'scene_path', but the schema already describes them adequately. The description does not need to compensate.

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 'List RichTextLabel nodes.' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('RichTextLabel nodes'). It distinguishes from sibling read_* tools which target different node types, and clarifies that the tool enumerates nodes rather than reading text content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_ui_nodes or find_nodes_in_scenes. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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