Describe Edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple 'read' statement by explaining that unreadable sections are listed under `unreadable` rather than failing, and that a 404 for listings on an edit with no staged listings is informational, not an error. This gives the agent useful edge-case behavior. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-back tool this is not a major gap.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the subsequent sentences add valuable edge-case context without repeating schema content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the tool's role in the workflow, its read-only nature, and notable edge-case behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could briefly clarify that no changes are made if the agent needs explicit reassurance.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters with meaningful descriptions ('Edit ID from create_edit' and 'App package name'). The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read back everything currently staged in an open edit.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from mutation-focused siblings like create_edit, commit_edit, and delete_edit. However, it does not explicitly contrast with validation-focused siblings like validate_edit, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 instruction 'Use before committing' provides clear contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool in the edit workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for validation/checking, but the workflow context is concrete and actionable.

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