launch_editor

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

With no annotations (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as launching a separate process, potential blocking, or side effects. The action 'launch editor' implies mutation but lacks detail.

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?

Description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as noting that it opens the editor UI.

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 tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description is almost complete. It lacks mention of what happens on success/failure, but this is minor for a launch action.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with 'Godot project path' for projectPath. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Launch' and resource 'Godot editor', clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'run_project' which runs a game. It states the scope 'for a specific project', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to launch editor vs run project). No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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