Editor status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses failure modes, the connection-state field, and the important side effect that 'The first call may start the dedicated Chrome window.' That is exactly the kind of environmental behavior an agent needs to know before calling a nominally read-only status tool.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core status purpose, followed immediately by usage guidance and then the Chrome-window side effect. Every sentence carries operational value, and the long return-field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the key returned fields and the failure conditions. For a zero-parameter status tool with read-only annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it and how to interpret a failed connection.

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 tool has zero input parameters, so the schema leaves no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on return-state fields instead of inventing parameter guidance, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter status probe.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Report the state of the live Elementor editor tab.' It then enumerates the exact fields returned, including connection state, editor URL, postId, document metadata, version, V4 atomic elements, selection, and lastSeq, so the agent can clearly distinguish this status tool from siblings like open_editor or mutate_canvas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first in every session' and names the fallback: 'if connected is false or the call fails with not_connected/no_editor_tab, call open_editor.' This routes the agent precisely between canvas_status and open_editor with no inference required.

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