retry_fix_with_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only instructs the agent on steps to perform (call run_tests, generate patch, apply_patch) without explaining what the tool itself actually does, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap.

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 short and includes a numbered list, making it easy to read. However, it is structured as agent instructions rather than a tool definition, and some sentences could be merged. It is adequately concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (orchestrating multiple steps) and the presence of an output schema, the description should still explain what the tool returns and how it behaves. It only provides a workflow guide, leaving gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly and what to expect.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter (repo_path, max_retries) or explain their meaning and usage. The description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool manages 'test-fix loops' and distinguishes it from siblings like run_tests and apply_patch by outlining a coordination workflow. However, it frames the description as instructions to Claude rather than describing what the tool itself does, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides a clear procedure for using the tool in test-fix loops and implicitly references sibling tools (run_tests, apply_patch). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives, but the context implies this is for iterative fix attempts.

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