fixRAgent maintenance triage

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description explains why: each call spends one request from the key's daily allowance and the reply reports how many independent reads agreed (implying run-to-run variance). It also discloses the no-key SAMPLE fallback and the location-metadata handling nuance (stripped server-side, not before the payload leaves the caller), which is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and payload contract before the exclusions, and every sentence carries real routing information. It is on the long side and the three consecutive 'Do not use' sentences cover related ground, which is slight redundancy but not padding.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still enumerates the return contract, cost model, sample behavior, and privacy handling, so an agent knows exactly what to expect. Nothing needed to call it correctly, or to decide not to, is missing.

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 100% and the parameters are already well documented in-schema (depth's read count and cost, reporter's wording effect, mime_type match rule, image constraints, problem_text as symptom not ground truth). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('assess a PHOTO of something in a building') and the scope of inputs it handles, then spells out the fixed return contract (asset identity, fault visibility, one of four urgency words, trade, resident line, agreement count). An agent can distinguish this from a general triage or sample tool without opening any schema.

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 explicit positive triggers with example asks, a hard exclusion list (people, pets, injuries, vehicles, food, documents, screenshots), an emergency escalation rule with concrete signals (gas hiss, CO alarm, water on live electrics) and the instruction not to call the tool, plus what it must not be used for (pricing, booking, insurance). This is about as complete a when/when-not specification as exists.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still layers on information they don't carry: it never re-reads the photo, never calls the model, consumes no daily allowance, and returns no contact details. Quota-cost and privacy behavior are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 when-to-use case is front-loaded, followed by cost and privacy guarantees, then exclusions. The exclusion list is longer than strictly needed, but each clause blocks a realistic misuse, so it earns most of its length.

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-id read tool with full annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers usage, cost, privacy, and the return shape at a high level. There is no gap an agent would need to fill before calling it.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the UUID format and its source. The description restates the id's provenance but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource — reading back a saved triage profile keyed by diagnosis_id — and explicitly distinguishes itself from assess_property_photo. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 gives the triggering condition (you already have a diagnosis_id from assess_property_photo or a fixragent.com/c/<id> link), names the alternative for new assessments, and enumerates what the tool is NOT for (person/address/property/account lookup). Nothing is left to inference.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: it needs no key, takes no input, reads no photo, and spends nothing. Auth requirements and cost are exactly the traits annotations do not carry, so this adds real value.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative 'Use this FIRST', then the conditions, then the return behavior, then the guardrail against misuse. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a no-input tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps: what is returned (a real stored sample labelled SAMPLE plus key instructions), that it is free and reads nothing, and how it differs from the real assessment path. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'takes no input', consistent with the empty schema and additionalProperties=false, leaving nothing ambiguous.

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 (try/return) and resource (a stored sample fixRAgent assessment) and explicitly names what it is not, routing to the sibling 'assess_property_photo with a key' for real photos. An agent can distinguish it from both siblings without opening any schema.

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 explicit triggering conditions ('Use this FIRST when the person has just connected fixRAgent, has no key yet, or asks what fixRAgent does') and a clear exclusion ('Do not present the sample as an assessment of the person's own photo; for their photo, use assess_property_photo with a key'). When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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