editor_get_info

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, but it merely restates the tool's name without explaining what 'status info' includes, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return format is. This adds almost no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 with no fluff, which is concise, but it is also under-specified. It lacks any additional structure or elaboration that would make it genuinely helpful, so it sits at an average level.

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?

Despite having zero parameters and no complex schema, the description fails to clarify what 'editor status info' encompasses or what a caller should expect in the response. Given the presence of several overlapping sibling tools, the description is insufficient for disambiguation or setting correct expectations.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The input schema is empty, and the description does not need to explain parameter details since there are none to document.

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's action ('Get') and resource ('editor status info'), making its basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_status' or 'editor_health_check', which also appear to retrieve editor-related status information.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as 'get_status', 'editor_health_check', or 'is_editor_running'. There are no context signals, exclusions, or recommended use cases.

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