editor_health_check

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 only states that the tool checks reachability, but does not describe what happens in success or failure, return format, side effects, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that may involve network or plugin state.

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, concise sentence that fronts the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan. Every word adds value, though the content is limited.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the result is presented, but it does not mention return values, error behavior, or how to interpret the health check. The lack of usage context makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and act on the result, despite the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% (empty). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none, and it introduces no confusion about arguments.

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 function: verifying that the Godot editor plugin is reachable. It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource ('Godot editor plugin'), which distinguishes it from related tools like is_editor_running or get_status. However, it could be more explicit about what 'reachable' means (e.g., network connectivity, plugin loaded), leaving slight ambiguity.

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 vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended usage scenarios, such as checking the plugin before invoking other editor commands. This lacks helpful context for an agent deciding between editor_health_check and sibling tools like is_editor_running or get_status.

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