edit_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so read-only safety is covered. The description adds some useful context about the returned content (listings, graphic counts, tracks), but does not explain behavior around missing edits, package_name filtering, or response shape beyond that brief list.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words, and the key content is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse, but it is efficiently structured.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should compensate but mostly does not. It names the returned categories but omits parameter behavior and enough detail for an agent to confidently call the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The required edit_id is somewhat self-explanatory, but the optional package_name and its effect on the summary are left completely unclear.

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 states what the summary contains (listings, graphic counts per language, tracks) but does not use a clear action verb or explicitly say it returns a summary of an edit. It lacks differentiation from siblings like validate_edit and commit_edit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_edit, commit_edit, or get_app_details. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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