neurocode_repair_ollama

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that repair is single-turn and model-backed. It never says whether files are modified (the schema's 'apply' flag is the only hint), what permissions or server state are required, whether output is a diff or prose, or how failures surface.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is achieved partly by omitting needed behavioral detail, but as a structure it is clean and readable.

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 mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits what the tool returns (patch, diff, explanation), how the apply flag interacts with results, and the environmental prerequisite of a reachable Ollama endpoint.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax or usage detail beyond the schema; the 'knapsack-sliced prompt' wording vaguely implies repo_path and issue feed the prompt but adds no actionable semantics.

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: it repairs bugs by sending a prompt to a local Ollama model instance. The 'single-turn' qualifier and 'knapsack-sliced prompt' phrase hint at mechanism, but there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like neurocode_slice even though that sibling likely produces the slices referenced here.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell from the text alone whether to choose this over neurocode_slice or another repair path, nor what preconditions (a running Ollama server, an existing repo) must hold.

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