get_editor_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies any state, or requires an open scene. It also lacks details on potential side effects or dependencies, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and result. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 no output schema, the description would benefit from specifying the format or structure of the returned compilation errors. While it mentions 'current scene tree', it does not clarify scope (e.g., whether it includes inherited scripts or only scripts attached directly). For a simple validation tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose, which compensates for the absence of parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 tool's function: validating all GDScripts in the current scene tree and returning compilation errors. It uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('GDScripts in the current scene tree'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'validate_script' (which likely validates a single script) and 'validate_shader'.

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 'validate_script' or 'get_output_log'. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when it might be inappropriate to use.

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