edits_catalog

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.