Editor Session

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, providing minimal behavioral signal. The description is truncated and adds no behavioral context about side effects (launching editors, creating sessions, disconnecting), timing implications, or what gets modified. For a session-management tool that can launch editor processes, this is a significant transparency 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?

Intentionally truncated to a single fragment phrase. While short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness - the truncated content suggests the full description would be longer but valuable context is lost. The visible text provides only a partial action list and no detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex: it has a oneOf schema with action-dependent parameter constraints, multiple required params, and three distinct operational modes with different semantics. The description addresses none of this complexity - no guidance on when sessions would need to be disconnected, what status inspection returns, or how ensure differs from just launching a project (run_project sibling). A richer description is needed for a tool with this much branching logic.

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?

While schema_description_coverage is 100%, the descriptions are themselves truncated ('For ensure, launch an editor only af…', 'For action=ensure only:'). The schema does clarify that launchIfNeeded only applies to ensure and timeoutSeconds also applies only to ensure via the not{} constraints in the schema, but the description adds the conditional logic context that the schema's bare enum values don't convey. The description bridges some gaps left by truncation.

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 'Discover, attach, inspect, or discon…' indicates a multi-purpose session management tool but is truncated and doesn't specify the resource (editor session for Godot) directly. The title and parameter schema reveal it manages Godot editor sessions (ensure/status/disconnect), but the description alone is vague about what the tool does or the resource it operates on.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from siblings like editor_transaction or run_project. The schema's oneOf structure and action enum imply three distinct usage modes (ensure/status/disconnect), but the description itself doesn't clarify when to choose this over sibling tools or how actions map to scenarios.

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