launch_editor

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

Describes return value (plain-text confirmation) and error condition (missing project.godot). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While it lacks details about process behavior (e.g., blocking, interaction), it sufficiently conveys the non-destructive nature of spawning an editor process.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage constraints, return value, and error condition. No wasted words, front-loaded with most important information.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, return format, and error condition. Completeness is adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Only one parameter 'projectPath' with schema description 'Path to the Godot project directory'. Description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it opens the Godot editor GUI for human users, with the specific verb 'Open' and resource 'editor GUI'. Differentiates from sibling tools by specifying that agent-driven work should use headless scene/node tools instead.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use only when user explicitly asks to 'open the editor', and for agent-driven work to use headless tools like add_node, set_node_properties. Names alternatives and provides clear context.

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