editor_evaluate_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that evaluating arbitrary GDScript expressions can have side effects, does not clarify the evaluation environment (e.g., current stack frame), and does not state whether the evaluation result is returned. This is a significant gap for a potentially dangerous operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and context, perfectly sized for a tool with one parameter.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) but involves evaluating arbitrary expressions, which benefits from more context. The description mentions 'debugger/editor context' but does not explain what happens after evaluation (e.g., return value, errors) or potential side effects. It is minimally viable but lacks the detail needed for a user to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional lookups.

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%: the only parameter 'expression' is described in the schema as 'GDScript expression to evaluate'. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter clearly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('GDScript expression'), and adds the context 'debugger/editor context'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like editor_run_gdscript or runtime_call_method, which have different purposes.

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 phrase 'in debugger/editor context' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. The description does not mention related tools like editor_run_gdscript or runtime_call_method, leaving the user to infer the intended use case.

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