get_fix_plan

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states what the response contains and that format can be JSON or Markdown, and mentions the tier-dependent refactorPlan. However, it does not disclose potential errors, auth requirements, or limitations such as large payloads.

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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 description adequately covers the tool's output contents, format options, and special refactorPlan behavior. It lacks mention of error handling, prerequisites beyond auditId, or any pagination, but for a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, it is quite complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the format option but does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema defines. No new parameter context is provided.

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 starts with 'Get the full Fix Plan for an audit', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It lists the specific contents (impact, remediation, test steps, confidence, agent-safety flags), distinguishing it from siblings like get_findings and get_fix_prompt.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The only usage hint is 'do those first' regarding refactorPlan, which is internal output prioritization, not tool selection. It does not mention exclusions or when to use other tools.

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