editor_get_input_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', implying non-destructive behavior, but offers no additional context such as return format, side effects, or requirements (e.g., editor running). This is minimal disclosure.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and object, making it easy to parse. This is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns or any operational context. It does not, leaving ambiguity about the result format and how it differs from 'read_input_map'. The tool's simplicity is not a substitute for essential operational details.

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, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds nothing beyond the schema because there are no parameters to describe, but the baseline already accounts for this.

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 action ('Read') and the target resource ('Input Map'), with the qualifier 'via editor API' indicating it uses the editor-specific interface. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'read_input_map', which could be confusing for an agent deciding between the two.

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. There is a similar sibling 'read_input_map' which could be a viable alternative, but the description does not clarify the relationship or provide any context for selection. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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