screenstudio_editor_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description usefully conveys that this is *live* state and that includeConfig widens the payload, but it omits what happens when no editor is open and the trailing note about config ops is a routing hint rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 core content is front-loaded in the first clause, and the includeConfig condition is stated before the exhaustive settings list. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item earns its place; only the trailing 'config op' sentence reads as slightly extraneous.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned data (timeline elements, playhead, undo state, style summary, settings). Safe-read annotations cover the mutation risk, so the main residual gap is the undocumented projectPath and the unstated editor-must-be-open precondition.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. includeConfig is well explained (it unlocks every project setting), but projectPath is never described at all, leaving roughly half of the two parameters undocumented. The long parenthetical enumerates returned fields rather than parameter semantics.

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 names a specific resource (the open editor's live timeline) and enumerates its concrete contents: slices, zooms, camera layouts, masks, playhead, undo state, and style summary. It is clearly a read-state tool, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like screenstudio_editor_view or screenstudio_editor_list.

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 'with includeConfig, every project setting' tells the agent when to enable that parameter, which is genuine conditional guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus editor_view/editor_list, nor any prerequisite that an editor must already be open; usage is only implied.

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