evaluate_then_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions auto-fix support, returning patches, and the combined workflow, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., no file modification), error states, or prerequisites. It is acceptable but not thorough.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the primary functionality, and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its space efficiently.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested config, no output schema), the description is minimal. It mentions output as 'verdict alongside patches' but does not detail the response format or how patches are applied. It is adequate for the tool's simplicity but could provide more guidance.

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 all parameters are described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional explanation beyond the schema. Baseline score is 3, and no extra value 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 clearly states the tool evaluates code and generates fix patches for auto-fixable findings. It returns both a verdict and patches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `evaluate_code` (evaluation only) and `fix_code` (apply fixes), as it combines both steps.

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 explicitly advises to use this for a 'single-step review + fix workflow', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools (e.g., evaluate_code for pure evaluation), though this is implied by sibling tool names and the description.

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