editor_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses a side effect (refreshes session readiness cache), explains the semantic distinction between is_playing and game_status.status, and details the unusual 'break' status with a required follow-up action. This goes far beyond a simple 'get 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 long but every sentence earns its place: it starts with the core function, then explains access forms, side effects, recovery use, and response field semantics. The structure is logical, with clear paragraphs and front-loaded key 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?

Given the tool's complexity—including a side effect, nuanced response fields, and a special 'break' status—the description covers all essential aspects. An output schema exists, so the description need not list every return field, but it explains the critical ones and their interpretation, making the tool fully contextualized.

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 parameter session_id is fully described in the schema ('Optional Godot session to target. Empty = active session.'). The description reinforces this with 'prefer for active-session reads' but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get current Godot editor state' and enumerates specific components: version, readiness, open scene, play state. It also differentiates from the sibling editor_manage by noting it's the same handler via an alternative access form, which helps clarify its scope.

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 usage guidance: it says 'prefer for active-session reads' for the resource form, notes the alternative editor_manage(op='state') for clients preferring a single tool, and gives a concrete recovery scenario after an EDITOR_NOT_READY rejection. This clearly indicates when and how to use the tool.

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