get_editor_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly indicates a read-only status operation through 'check' and 'report' and enumerates the output fields, which is transparent for a simple status tool. It does not cover edge cases like disconnection errors, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Check connectivity and report') and uses a parenthetical list to compactly present the output items. Every part is informative with no wasted words.

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-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the output content, and the connected editor context. The sibling tools are clearly different, and the description provides enough information to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies due to the absence of parameters; the description correctly omits any parameter discussion.

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 checks connectivity and reports basic editor info, listing specific items like project file, level name, engine version, and actor/selection counts. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on actors, assets, and editor operations.

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 the tool is for verifying connectivity and getting an overview of the editor state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any preconditions. No alternatives are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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