debug_propose_fix

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main actions: diagnosing, reading source around the offending line, and generating a proposal. However, it does not clarify whether this tool modifies anything, what 'verified' means, or what side effects or prerequisites exist.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the high-level purpose and then lists the concrete steps. The '[HIGH_LEVEL]' prefix and the word 'verified' add slight ambiguity, but the description remains tight and clutter-free.

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 is sufficient for understanding the call's purpose and required inputs, especially given complete schema coverage. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the structure or format of the 'fix proposal' or what 'verified' entails, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's output and side effects.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds conceptual context by linking errorLine to 'the offending line' and scriptPath to 'relevant script source,' but it provides no extra format, range, or usage details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('diagnoses') and resource (runtime error, relevant script source) and clearly states the deliverable: a verified fix proposal. This distinguishes it from siblings like debug_find_error (finding errors) or script_patch_source (applying source changes) by combining error diagnosis with fix generation.

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 intended use case is implied: when a runtime error occurs and the caller has the script path, error line, and error message. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as debug_find_error, script_get_source, or diagnostics_safe_repair, nor any exclusions.

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