edit_inspect

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 reveals the tool is a read-oriented structural dump (non-mutating by implication), notes its heavier nature (performance hint), and enumerates the content (plugin params, clip gain/fade/offset, automation lane counts, master chain). It stops short of explicitly stating 'read-only' or describing response format, but the 'dump' and 'understand' wording strongly imply non-mutation.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds contrast and usage context. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (the enumerated structural details), when to invoke it (after edit_open, before mutation), and how it differs from edit_summary. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details (unnecessary). Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 ('dump') and resource ('current Edit'), and immediately differentiates from sibling edit_summary by noting it is 'Heavier' and includes detailed components. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the lighter alternative, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after edit_open to understand a song before mutating it.' This provides a clear temporal and contextual cue, and the contrast with edit_summary implies when the lighter version is appropriate. No ambiguity remains.

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