editor_run_specific_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., launching a game window, stopping current runs) or requirements (e.g., editor must be running). This is a gap for a tool that presumably mutates the running 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 sentence that is directly front-loaded with the core action ('Run a specific scene') and immediately adds the distinguishing scope ('not just main'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema, so completeness needs are relatively low. However, the description lacks behavioral and usage details (e.g., side effects, when to use), making it minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the 'scene' parameter is fully described with an example ('res://scenes/level1.tscn'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Run a specific scene') and distinguishes it from running the main scene via the parenthetical '(not just main)'. This satisfies the verb+resource criterion, though it could be more explicit about the editor context.

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 phrase 'not just main' implies the tool is for non-main scenes, providing some situational context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like run_project or editor_play, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit.

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