editor_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it executes on the GAME THREAD via the bridge's command drain, it never starts or stops anything, it is cheap and safe at any time, and it discloses the exact diagnostic semantics of alive=true/false, error, and frame_counter progression. This is more than the annotations could convey.

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?

Roughly six dense sentences, front-loaded with the core claim ('prove the editor is alive and TICKING') before the diagnostic procedure. Almost every clause carries load, though the crash-vs-timeout and deadlock-diff guidance could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating every returned field. For a zero-argument health probe whose annotations already cover the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly, including the follow-up procedure when the bridge misbehaves.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the response shape (alive, gis_running, exit_requested, frame_counter, pie_active, is_simulating, editor_world, world_context_count), which is useful but is output semantics rather than parameter semantics; there is nothing parameter-level left to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('no-argument game-thread liveness/health probe') and immediately differentiates itself from the closest conceptual alternative (a transport-only ping that a wedged editor still answers). An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema, and the returned field list reinforces the health-check purpose.

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?

Explicit when: 'the first call to make when the MCP bridge goes quiet', and 'after a Connection reset'. Explicit discriminative procedure: call twice and diff frame_counter to distinguish deadlock from a single frozen reply. It also names the failure-mode alternative (transport ping) and what a crash looks like versus a timeout, so nothing is left to inference.

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