launch_editor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the launch action but does not explain whether the tool blocks, returns immediately, reuses an existing editor instance, or what happens if the editor is installed. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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 economical and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, lacking useful details such as behavior or return values. It is not a tautology, but it conveys only the bare minimum.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no context about prerequisites (e.g., project existence, editor installation) or interactions with related tools like stop_project or is_editor_running. The description should provide more context for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (scene and project_path) adequately described. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the schema already provides the necessary details.

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 (launch) and target (Godot editor) with project context, distinguishing it from siblings like run_project and stop_project. However, it could be more specific about what 'with project' entails, such as opening a specific project path, though that detail is in the schema.

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 like run_project or editor_play. The description lacks any mention of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred.

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