editor_get_class_doc

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 clearly states the side effect of opening a browser, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential failures (e.g., if the class does not exist) or whether it is read-only, though that is implied. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the tool name but lacks depth.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero superfluous words. It is a model of concise, straightforward prose.

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, with one parameter and no output schema, so a short description is appropriate. However, given the large number of sibling tools that involve classes and documentation, the description could provide more context (e.g., that it opens the online documentation, or that it is suitable for viewing class references). It is minimally viable but leaves some ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a class', indicating the 'class' parameter is a Godot class name, but it does not specify the expected format, whether it should be a fully qualified name, or provide examples. The compensation is minimal, leaving the agent to infer the exact parameter value 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 'Open Godot documentation for a class in browser' uses a specific verb ('Open') with a clear resource ('Godot documentation for a class') and destination ('in browser'). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like editor_get_class_list (which returns a list) and editor_get_class_properties (which returns properties).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as editor_search_help, editor_get_class_list, or editor_get_class_properties. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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