get_editor_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and "full snapshot" implies a complete read but never states it is read-only, how large the payload is, or what the snapshot contains. Nothing warns that this could be an expensive full-state dump.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as short as it could be, though that brevity is part of why it under-specifies.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a very large sibling surface, the description must explain what the snapshot actually includes and when it is worth calling. It says nothing about return contents or cost, so an agent cannot confidently choose it over narrower getters.

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 schema takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description does not introduce any parameter confusion.

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?

It has a verb ("Return") and a resource ("the MCP server's current state"), but "current state" is undefined given dozens of state-adjacent siblings such as get_selection and snapshot_layout. The name says "editor" while the description says "server", leaving an agent unsure whether this is the editor document state or a broader server snapshot.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like get_selection or snapshot_layout that an agent might otherwise pick. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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