runtime_call_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It does not mention that calling an arbitrary method may alter state, crash the game, or have irreversible effects. The generic 'call a method' leaves expectations for return values and error behavior undisclosed.

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 that conveys the essential purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value.

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 potentially risky nature of dynamically invoking a method on a node, the description is too minimal. It lacks behavioral context such as error handling, return values, or cautions about side effects. The presence of runtime_* siblings amplifies the need to clarify when and how this should be used.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for path, method, and args. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not compensate with extra context like argument formats or edge cases.

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: 'Call a method on a node in the running game.' The verb 'call' and resource 'node' are specific, and the scope 'in the running game' distinguishes it from editor-only operations. It differentiates well from sibling tools like runtime_emit_signal or runtime_set_node.

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 about when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as modify_node, runtime_set_node, or runtime_emit_signal. The only hint is 'in the running game,' which implies runtime context but does not explain exclusions or prerequisites.

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