editor_state

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered without the text. The description adds genuine behavioral guidance beyond that: this is a required pre-flight read before any mutation, which affects call ordering. It stops short of describing cost, staleness, or what a revision value implies.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the read-before-mutation constraint is placed where it will actually be seen. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

Zero-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema; the description names the broad content of the response so an agent knows what it is getting. The main residual gap is that with no output schema, the exact shape of the returned revision/camera/capabilities data is unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline of 4 applies. The brief mention of what the read covers (map/session/revision, camera, capabilities) is a bonus rather than a requirement.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the resources returned: map/session/revision, camera state, and editor capabilities. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like camera_set, region_read, or map_catalog, which cover different scopes. Slightly less than 5 because "editor capabilities" is left abstract.

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?

"Read before mutations" gives an explicit trigger condition that an agent can act on when deciding between this and the many write siblings (entity_create, map_save_as, texture_apply, etc.). It does not name a specific alternative or state when not to call it, which keeps it below a 5.

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