Modding Kit editor status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds meaningful context the annotations do not: that it reports on blocking message boxes like 'RGL WARNING' and 'Safe Mode', and that some results (editor state, scene, counts) are conditional on the bridge being connected. That conditional behavior is exactly the kind of trait structured fields cannot express.

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 long sentence, but it is front-loaded with the primary purpose ('whether the Modding Kit is installed') and then expands through a readable checklist. No filler sentences. The em-dash parenthetical for the bridge-connected case is efficient. Slightly dense list-form, but every clause earns its place.

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, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the full surface an agent needs: what is checked, the conditional nature of the editor-state fields, and the blocking message-box concept. What is missing is a hint about return shape (structured vs. free text) and whether it is safe to call repeatedly, but annotations already signal it is a read operation.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing to document, and the description correctly omits any parameter narrative rather than inventing one.

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 read operation with a clearly enumerated set of outputs: installation status, bridge module currency, running processes, blocking message boxes, and editor state. This is distinguishable from siblings like editor_bridge_install or editor_command, which are mutations. The verb 'Shows' plus the exhaustive field list leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 implies this is a diagnostic/status-read tool but never explicitly says when to call it versus alternatives, nor does it name a sibling. There is no 'use this before X' or 'if you need Y, use Z instead' guidance. For a zero-param status tool this is tolerable, but stronger routing would mention editor_bridge_install as the follow-up when the bridge is absent or stale.

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