read_script_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyze GDScript structure,' which essentially restates the tool name. It does not explain what analysis means, what output is produced, whether it performs validation, or any side effects, leaving the agent without meaningful behavioral information.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than concise writing. It does not add any detail beyond what the tool name already implies, so the brevity does not make the description more useful.

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?

For a tool that analyzes script structure, the description is critically incomplete. It does not specify what kind of structure is returned, what the output looks like, whether it handles errors gracefully, or any limitations. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent cannot infer expected behavior or 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'path' parameter with a clear description ('Path to .gd file (relative to project root)'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter's schema description, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb ('Analyze') and resource ('GDScript structure'), which distinguishes it from read_script (which reads content). However, 'structure' is vague and could mean an abstract syntax tree, class layout, function signatures, or something else, leaving the exact purpose ambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like read_script, validate_script, or search_in_scripts. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where an alternative would be better.

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