ksp_editor_get_craft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read by saying it 'returns' state and enumerates the returned content, but does not explicitly confirm it is side-effect free, what happens when no craft is loaded, or whether the response is additive/full-snapshot. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the returned components with no filler. Appropriate size for a zero-parameter getter.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is responsible for conveying return content, and it does list the major components (tree, transforms, nodes, modules, resources, staging). Missing situational context such as required scene or error behavior keeps this from a 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the exact resource it exposes (craft tree, part transforms, nodes, modules, resources, staging). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like ksp_editor_validate or ksp_editor_analyze, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 on when to call this versus ksp_editor_analyze, ksp_editor_validate, ksp_editor_job_status, or other editor state readers. There are no prerequisites or scene conditions stated (e.g. must be in the editor scene, craft must be loaded).

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