editor-debug-output

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

With no annotations, the description covers basic behavior (retrieves output, returns empty if no project). It lacks details on whether output is cumulative or incremental, or if there are side effects, but is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 very concise (two sentences plus an alias note). The key information is front-loaded, but the alias note is metadata that could distract. No unnecessary text.

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 no output schema, the description omits the return format (string, JSON, etc.). It clarifies when output is empty but not the structure of non-empty results. Suffices for a simple tool but lacks full completeness.

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% for the single 'reason' parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Brief explanation', so it meets the baseline without improvement.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves console output and errors from a running Godot project, using a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dap-output by focusing on the runtime console output.

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?

It advises using the tool 'after run_project' and notes it returns empty if no project is running, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like dap-output, limiting guidance.

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