FMagenticL

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the remote endpoint cannot write to the caller's filesystem and returns a patch for local application. It does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, patch format, or how the deterministic patch should be reviewed or applied.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key remote-filesystem constraint. Both sentences earn their place and there is no boilerplate or repetition.

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?

The tool has five undocumented nested/object parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose and one important constraint but leaves the input contract, error behavior, and returned patch format largely unexplained. That is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has five parameters with 0% description coverage, including nested objects, and the description mentions none of them. It adds no meaning for context, failure, raw_error, environment, or fingerprint. This is a major gap for an agent trying to supply correct inputs.

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 states a specific action and deliverable: resolve and prepare a deterministic patch for application. That is clear enough for an agent to know the tool produces a patch rather than applying it directly. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling fmagenticl_resolve or clarify what kinds of failures it auto-heals.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fmagenticl_resolve or fmagenticl_report_patch_outcome. The filesystem constraint is contextual behavior, not a use-case routing rule. An agent must infer invocation conditions from the tool name and siblings.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Query' implies a read, but it never states whether only open items are returned, whether historical/resolved grievances or their workarounds are included, or what the response looks like — significant gaps for a tool with zero structured behavioral metadata.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ('open', 'for a specific infrastructure target') is packed in efficiently.

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 single-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what the results contain (grievance records? workaround text? counts?) and how missing targets behave; neither is covered.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required 'target' parameter. It does clarify that the target is an infrastructure target, but gives no format guidance (hostname vs. ID vs. resource path), leaving ambiguity about what a valid value looks like.

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?

Specific verb ('Query') and resource ('open grievances and workarounds') scoped to an infrastructure target, which cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling submit_grievance. It stops short of naming that sibling or explaining how it relates to resolve/auto_heal.

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 by the phrase 'open grievances and workarounds' — an agent can guess this is a pre-remediation lookup, but nothing states when to call it versus resolve, auto_heal, or submit_grievance, nor are prerequisites given.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real side effect: three consecutive NACKs quarantine the patch. It omits whether an ACK resets that counter, whether reporting is idempotent or terminal, and what happens with an unrecognized fingerprint.

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, front-loaded with the verb and the enum semantics, with the quarantine consequence stated immediately after. 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?

Adequate for a mutation tool with no output schema: the outcome semantics and the quarantine rule are covered. Missing are the reset/terminal behavior of ACK, error handling for unknown fingerprints, and any indication of what the call returns or requires for authorization.

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 50%: fingerprint and submitted_by are documented in the schema, and the description usefully explains the ACK/NACK enum values beyond the bare enum. The 'notes' parameter is undocumented in both places and the description says nothing about what it should contain.

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 (report) and resource (patch outcome) and defines both enum values, so an agent knows exactly what is being recorded. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fmagenticl_resolve or fmagenticl_auto_heal, which also sound like remediation-closing actions.

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 ACK/NACK definitions imply when each outcome applies (patch resolved the failure vs failed/stale), which is useful. However, there is no guidance on prerequisites (must a patch have been submitted first?), no mention of when to prefer fmagenticl_resolve, and no exclusions.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: no indication that this is a write to a shared registry, whether submissions are idempotent, what happens on duplicate patches, or what 'verified' implies about acceptance. The only behavioral hint is the vague qualifier 'verified' on the patch.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than discipline: a six-parameter registry-write tool cannot be adequately framed in one clause. Nothing is wasted, but too little is 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?

Given three required parameters, two nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without side-effect, prerequisite, or return-behavior context. It is materially incomplete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 17% — only submitted_by is documented in the schema. The description touches 'verified' and 'resolution_patch' implicitly but says nothing about failure, environment, or technical_note, which are free-form nested objects an agent must construct blindly.

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 sentence has a concrete verb ('Submit') and resource ('verified self-healing patch'), but the tool name fmagenticl_report_telemetry points at telemetry reporting while the description describes patch submission to a registry — the mismatch is never reconciled. It also gives no signal to distinguish it from siblings like fmagenticl_report_patch_outcome or fmagenticl_resolve.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (auto_heal, report_patch_outcome, resolve) that an agent must choose between. The word 'verified' hints at a precondition but never states it as one.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose determinism, sub-100ms latency, and that results are signed/verified, which signals a safe read path. However, it never states that the call performs no mutation, what requires authentication, or what happens on a cache miss — gaps that matter for an unannotated 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 sentences, zero filler, with the core capability and the accepted input forms front-loaded. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 5-parameter tool with nested objects, zero required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves important questions open: what the successful response contains (patch text, URL, confidence score), how to interpret a no-match result, and the precedence among the optional inputs.

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 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount by naming three alternative input modes (fingerprint, raw error, target) and emphasizing the exact 64-char format, but it does not say how multiple optional parameters combine or which takes precedence.

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 (lookup) and a well-defined resource (signed patch or verified workaround for a failure), plus a concrete performance claim. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fmagenticl_auto_heal, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'resolve a failure' and 'auto-heal a failure'.

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 sentence 'Accepts exact 64-char SHA-256 fingerprint, raw error string, or target tool name' implies the trigger context (you have a failure and want a remedy), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to fmagenticl_auto_heal / fmagenticl_report_patch_outcome as alternatives. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that a workaround is mandatory and should be verified, but it does not disclose side effects, whether submissions are immutable, duplicate handling, authentication requirements, or what happens after submission. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is a major gap.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the action first. The second sentence largely repeats the workaround requirement already stated in the first, which is minor redundancy rather than harmful verbosity.

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—9 parameters, 5 required fields, a nested environment object, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema—the two-sentence description is far too sparse. It covers the core purpose but leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.

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 description coverage is only 22%, so the description should compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It only reinforces that workaround is mandatory and adds that it should be verified; it does not explain grievance_type values, target, harness, environment structure, fingerprint, or submitted_by.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: submitting a structured infrastructure friction report. It clearly conveys the core action, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as report_patch_outcome or get_grievances.

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 implies usage by saying a verified workaround is mandatory, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent must infer whether this is the right reporting tool for a given situation.

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