runtime_emit_signal

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without explaining side effects (e.g., triggering connected handlers), error conditions (e.g., node not found), or whether the game must be actively running. This is insufficient for a runtime mutation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 adequate for a simple tool with well-documented schema parameters, but it lacks important context such as error behavior, argument format details, and the relationship to sibling runtime tools. It does not explain what happens when the signal is emitted or how args are passed.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (path, signal, args), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already documents. 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 clearly states the action: 'Emit a signal on a node in the running game.' It uses a specific verb ('emit') and resource ('signal on a node'), which distinguishes it from connection-related tools like connect_signal.

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 connect_signal or editor_connect_signal. The only contextual hint is 'in the running game,' but no explicit usage scenarios or exclusions are given.

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