editor-run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs until stop_project is called and captures output, implying a long-running operation with non-destructive behavior. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'launch'.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes references to related tools (stop_project, get_debug_output) without extraneous detail. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers launching, output capture, stopping, and log retrieval. It lacks mention of error handling or return value, but for a run tool with no output schema, this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that projectPath should be an absolute path and used consistently across calls, and that scene is optional with a format example. This provides guidance beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 tool launches a Godot project in a new window and captures output, using a specific verb ('Launches') and resource ('Godot project'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it runs until stop_project is called and that output is captured for retrieval via get_debug_output, providing context that differentiates it from other run/launch tools.

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 says to use the tool to test gameplay or verify script behavior, and mentions retrieving logs via get_debug_output. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though the context of 'test gameplay or verify script behavior' is clear. It lacks comparisons to siblings like editor-launch.

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