editor_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral caveat not present in any structured field: a successful status result must not be read as proof the bridge is live. It stops short of describing what the inspection returns, which is the remaining gap.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from annotations or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description leaves the return content undefined: an agent cannot tell whether it will get install paths, versions, bridge presence flags, or a boolean. The connectivity caveat covers the biggest misuse risk, but for a diagnostic tool whose entire value is its report, the absence of any return-value hint is a real gap.

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 and the schema is fully described, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Inspect') and scope ('local configuration and installation'), and the second sentence implicitly separates it from editor_ping by denying it reports bridge connectivity. It never states the object explicitly ('the editor bridge/extension'), so a reader has to infer it from the tool name and sibling set, but the resource is unambiguous in context.

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 clause 'Does not claim the editor bridge is connected' steers the agent away from using this as a connectivity check, which is a useful exclusion. However it never names the alternative (editor_ping) or states positively when to prefer this tool, so the routing guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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