inspect_editable_regions

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

No annotations provided, but the description reveals that the tool operates on file-mode, does not mutate the open window, and produces a completed copy. This is fairly transparent, though it could explicitly state read-only behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and provides essential usage guidance. It is not overly verbose, though the dense technical information could be slightly restructured for clarity.

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 tool's complexity and many sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral notes, and relationship to other tools. Output schema handles return values, so no further detail needed.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. However, it does not mention 'path' or 'compact'. While 'path' is implied by file-mode context, 'compact' remains unexplained, leaving the agent guessing.

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 tool inspects file-mode structural edit targets before writes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like apply_addressed_edits and complete_addressed_template by specifying its role as a preparatory step.

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 description explicitly tells when to use structural addresses (for repeated elements, table cells, etc.) and warns against global replace without scope. It also names the appropriate follow-up tools (preview_addressed_edits, apply_addressed_edits, complete_addressed_template).

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