repair_hints

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no output shape, no indication of how the hint is derived, and no limitations on the lookup.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the error-text focus is front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail rather than being efficient coverage.

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, yet the description does not explain what a repair hint contains or how it should be used. For a tool with two parameters and zero schema descriptions, the definition is materially incomplete.

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 schema does not explain either parameter. The description hints that error_text is the input, but it does not define its expected format or explain the optional 'goal' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both structured and unstructured form.

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 'Подсказка по тексту ошибки Fusion' largely restates the tool name (repair_hints) and only adds that the input is a Fusion error text. It does not state a clear verb, what kind of repair hint is produced, or distinguish this tool from siblings such as last_error or workflow_hints.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not say whether to call this after last_error, when to prefer it over workflow_hints, or what prerequisites exist for obtaining a useful hint.

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