Editor Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Report' signals a read-only diagnostic, and it discloses the discovery mechanism plus the three environment variables that override it. It does not say what happens when no binary is found (error vs. negative result), which is the main remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior; the env-var override detail is compressed into a single tight line with no waste.

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?

A simple zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return-value detail is not needed. Discovery and override are covered; only the failure/no-install behavior is unstated, which is minor against the existing output schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes beyond the empty schema by documenting the out-of-band configuration surface (EDITOR010_EXE, ZERO10_EXE, 010EDITOR_EXE), which an agent would otherwise not know about.

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 and resource: reports whether 010 Editor is installed and which binary discovery would resolve to. This is clearly distinct from the run_template/run_script siblings, though the description never names 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 only implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/health-check tool to call before running scripts, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' clause or a statement of alternatives.

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