edit_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only 'Return' operation and lists the summary contents, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it describe behavior when no Edit is open. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: action, output type, scope, and content categories are all present.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is largely complete: it tells the agent what the call returns and at what granularity. It could be more explicit about the exact JSON structure or error/empty-edit behavior, but the tool's simplicity makes the current description sufficient.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds useful context by enumerating what the summary includes (tracks, clips, markers, tempo), which helps the agent understand the meaning of the returned data despite no parameters.

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 clearly states the action (Return), the resource (current Edit), and the content categories (tracks, clips, markers, tempo). It is specific and immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling edit_inspect.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_inspect or edit_create. The description explains what the tool returns but not when an agent should prefer it or what conditions apply.

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