editor_get_rect

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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not clarify whether dimensions are in screen coordinates or relative to the editor viewport, nor does it specify the return type (e.g., Rect2). This is a minor gap for a simple getter.

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 6-word sentence, immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only getter, the description captures the core behavior. It does not state the return format or units of the dimensions, which—since there is no output schema—would be helpful for an agent to consume the result correctly. Still, the simplicity of the tool makes this adequate at a high level.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter descriptions needed. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('editor window dimensions'), clearly distinguishing it from other sibling getters like editor_get_selection or get_godot_version. The tool name editor_get_rect aligns with the description, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies a simple read-only query with an obvious use case: retrieving the editor's window dimensions. There are no alternative sibling tools for this exact purpose, so the context is clear even though explicit when-to-use guidance is not provided.

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