editor_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned data (connection, version, open mod), but does not state that it is a read-only, side-effect-free probe, nor what happens or is returned when the editor is not connected.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loading the core purpose and then the returned facts. Nothing would be gained by shortening or restructuring it.

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?

For a zero-param status tool without an output schema, the description supplies the key return fields, which is helpful. It still omits the not-connected behavior and failure semantics, leaving an agent unsure what a disconnected result looks like.

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, which is the baseline 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond that, and it introduces no parameter confusion.

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 ('Report') and the exact facts returned: connection state, version, and open mod. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_mods or open_mod_panel, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: a zero-param status probe one calls before working with the editor. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it (e.g., as a precondition check before save_all or upsert_datatable_rows) or what to do if disconnected.

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