editor-launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'opens a new window on the host system,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not indicate whether the tool blocks, returns a status, or what happens if the project is already open. More behavioral details would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and alias, then gives usage guidance and requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is one parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonable but incomplete. It lacks information about blocking behavior, error conditions (e.g., missing project.godot), and return values. For a launch tool, these details are important for an agent to know the consequences of invoking it.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'project directory with project.godot file' is redundant with the schema parameter description. The schema already provides clear semantics for the parameter, so the description adds no additional meaning.

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 the verb ('opens') and resource ('Godot editor GUI for a project'). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'when visual inspection or manual editing is needed,' which contrasts with siblings like editor-run (likely used for running the project). The mention that it is a compact alias of launch_editor adds clarity.

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 explicitly states when to use ('when visual inspection or manual editing...') and provides a prerequisite ('Requires: project directory with project.godot file'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, even though the context of siblings implies alternatives.

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