edits_status

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.