launch_editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Launch') but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it opens a GUI, requires specific permissions, has side effects like locking files, or how it handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.

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 complexity of launching an editor (which could involve system interactions, error handling, and side effects), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially compared to sibling tools that might overlap in functionality.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'projectPath' clearly documented as 'Path to the Godot project directory'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 ('Launch') and target resource ('Godot editor for a specific project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_project' or 'stop_project', which also involve project execution/management, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_project' (which might execute a project without launching the editor) or 'list_projects' (which could help identify available projects). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing Godot installed or the project being valid, leaving usage context unclear.

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