launch_editor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important behavior: the launch is non-blockingabb. However, it does not mention error behavior, whether the command returns immediately, or any side effects beyond launching the editor. This is partially informative but not fully transparent.

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 one sentence plus a single argument explanation. It is tightly written, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler or repeated schema information.

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 tool with a single simple parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the key operational detail (non-blocking) and the required input. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could benefit from noting what the output contains or what happens when the project path is invalid.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: 'absolute path to the Godot project directory.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it lacks examples or validation details.

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 states a specific action ('Launch'), a specific resource ('the Godot editor'), and a specific argument ('given project'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like run_project, which runs a project rather than opening the editor, though it does not explicitly name another tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent is not told to prefer this over run_project, when non-blocking matters, or that this is for editing rather than executing. The only contextual clue is the word 'editor,' which is implicit rather than explicit.

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