Edits MCP Bridge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the data comes from an authenticated built-in endpoint, the catalog is screen-dependent and therefore volatile, and returned descriptions must be treated as untrusted data. That last point is an important safety trait not expressible in annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is fetched and followed by the two properties that matter most (volatility and trust). Nothing is wasted, though 'Catalog changes with the current screen' is compressed enough to require a moment's interpretation.

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, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers source, dynamism, and trust handling, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of saying what the returned catalog looks like or how to act on it, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. It does not introduce parameter concepts that would conflict with the empty schema.

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 specific verb and resource: fetch native Edits tools and their input schemas from the built-in MCP endpoint. It clearly reads as a discovery/catalog operation, though it never names its siblings edits_status or edits_invoke to draw the boundary explicitly.

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: the agent can infer this is the lookup step before invoking an Edits tool, and 'Catalog changes with the current screen' hints at when results may differ. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus edits_status, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: the allowlist gate, the env-var gate for writes, absence of automatic retries, and the instruction to inspect state after a timeout. These are exactly the failure and authorization traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then gates, then schema semantics, then failure handling. No filler; each sentence supplies a distinct operational fact.

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 dynamic dispatcher with no output schema and an opaque 'arguments' object, the description covers authorization, schema delegation, destructive potential and timeout semantics. What is missing is return-value shape and how the agent learns the per-tool native schema before constructing 'arguments'.

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 must carry the load, and it does: 'name' must be an exact native tool identifier sourced from edits_catalog, and 'arguments' is a passthrough governed by the native tool's own input schema. It still does not say whether the native schema is discoverable per entry or how to obtain it, which leaves a small gap.

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 specific verb and resource: invoke an exact native tool discovered via edits_catalog. The capability sentence ('Can edit, export, delete or publish...') defines the scope of what may be dispatched, which cleanly separates it from edits_catalog (discovery) and edits_status (state inspection).

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: operator allowlist required, and EDITS_ALLOW_WRITES=1 for write-style tools, plus post-timeout behavior (no automatic retries, inspect state). It does not explicitly say 'resolve the name via edits_catalog first' or what to do when a name is not allowlisted, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope note that it only inspects corner-local state and never launches or modifies Edits. It says nothing about what the inspection returns, how fresh the data is, or what happens if Edits is not installed, which leaves real gaps for a status tool.

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 sentences, with the positive scope first and the negative constraint second. Every clause carries information, and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to carry the burden of describing what the response contains. It lists the three areas inspected (metadata, signature, policy), which covers most of that burden. It does not describe the shape of the response or what the fields mean, which a status tool would ideally spell out.

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 takes no parameters, so nothing needs explaining. The description correctly conveys that the call needs no arguments, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("Inspect") and enumerates the resources covered: local Edits metadata, code signature, and bridge policy. That is far more specific than the tool name alone. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it differs from, though the negation hints at the boundary.

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?

It states the use case (status/inspection) and an explicit exclusion: the tool does not launch or modify Edits, which implicitly rules it out when the agent needs to run something. It never names edits_invoke or edits_catalog as alternatives, so the agent has to infer which sibling handles launching.

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