game_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it discloses main-thread execution and enumerates the two error modes with their payloads (registered-name listing, handler exception type and message). What's missing is the critical caveat that an arbitrary registered command may mutate editor state with unknown side effects, which matters greatly for a generic passthrough executor.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and execution context, followed by a compact error contract. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the error surface is documented. The remaining gap is behavioral: no statement about reversibility, permissions, or the fact that arbitrary command side effects are the caller's responsibility.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says ('name as game_commands lists it', 'args as the command's description asks for') — it doesn't explain quoting, splitting, or optional-arg behavior.

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 and resource ('Runs a registered game command') plus the execution context (editor's main thread) and the return shape (text result). It doesn't name the sibling game_commands that enumerates valid names, so the list-versus-execute distinction must be inferred from the schema rather than the description.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'registered' plus the unknown_command error that 'lists the registered names' hints the agent should discover names first. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no guidance on preferring a dedicated sibling tool (e.g. editor_play_mode, build_compile_scripts) over an arbitrary command.

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