instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioural context that this tool actively probes live editors to gather heartbeat/health and that it reports kernel state and workspace folder. It does not disclose cost, latency, or what happens when no editor is running, which matters for a live-probing tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then lists returned data, then closes with the decisive usage guidance. Dense but every clause carries information; the long enumerative sentence is slightly heavy but earns its length given there is no output schema.

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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the fields an agent will receive. It covers the core discovery use case well; only edge behaviour (no editors found, partial failures) is unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single includeProject parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of 'the project each one has open' hints at the same concept but adds no semantics about the boolean's default or cost of enabling it.

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 (find) and enumerates the exact resource set it resolves: installation/version, running editor instances with port, heartbeat and health, the open project, kernel state and workspace folder. That enumeration is unusually concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'status' tool, which appears to overlap.

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?

'Call it first when a cell cannot reach the editor' gives an explicit, actionable trigger condition, effectively declaring this the entry-point diagnostic. What's missing is any exclusion or hand-off to the sibling 'status' tool, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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