editor

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and description explains that launch opens the editor and status checks if it's running. No contradictions. However, it does not detail side effects or what happens to the editor state.

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 extremely concise: one sentence header, a clear bullet list with arrow notation, and a helpful sibling reference. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at return values. It mentions 'open editor' and 'check if editor is running' but does not specify what status returns (e.g., boolean, string). This is a notable gap for a straightforward tool.

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 has 2 parameters with 100% coverage. Description adds context by mapping action values to specific behaviors and indicating project_path is optional via the arrow notation. This adds meaning beyond the schema's enums and descriptions.

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 'Godot editor control' and lists two specific actions (launch, status) with their effects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'project' by explicitly advising to use project(action='run') for running the game.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it differentiates between launch and status, and tells users to use project(action='run') instead for running the game. Required and optional parameters are indicated with arrows.

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