editor_run_gdscript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'in editor context', but fails to mention that arbitrary code execution can modify project files, crash the editor, or have other side effects. No information about return values, error handling, or execution scope is given.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core function. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, front-loading the key information.

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 powerful code execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not mention whether the code returns a value, what happens on errors, or the potential impact on the editor project. The agent is left without critical context needed to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 provides 100% coverage with a description for the 'code' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's description, leaving the agent with only the basic understanding that 'code' is 'GDScript code to execute in editor context'.

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 executes arbitrary GDScript code in the editor context, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like editor_evaluate_expression (which evaluates expressions) and runtime_call_method (which runs in runtime), making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as editor_evaluate_expression or validate_script. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent without context for choosing between similar tools.

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