get_edit

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose 'Read-only', which is the single most important behavioral fact. It says nothing about permissions needed, what happens when the edit has expired or does not exist, or whether the check has 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. It is perhaps over-terse for a tool with an undocumented required parameter, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the return as open/valid plus expiry is reasonably complete. Missing are the meaning and provenance of editId and any failure/expiry-edge behavior, which matter for correct invocation.

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 only 50%: packageName is documented in the schema, but editId has no description anywhere. The description mentions neither parameter, so it adds no meaning about how to obtain an editId or how it relates to packageName.

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 concrete operation on a specific resource: checks whether an edit is open/valid and reports its expiry time. This is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling validate_edit, whose name suggests a closely overlapping purpose.

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?

Usage is only implied (check an edit's state before acting on it). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over validate_edit or get_app_details, and no mention of when it should be called (e.g. pre-commit).

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