qa_probe_suggest_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes the tool as retrieving a fix guide, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose what happens if an invalid root cause is provided or the format of the output.

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, consisting of two sentences and an example query. Every part adds value and the main action is front-loaded.

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 single enum parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for understanding the basic purpose but lacks details about the return value format (e.g., is it a text guide, list of steps?). Additional context about the output would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only providing an example usage. It does not clarify additional constraints or format details.

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 'Get a step-by-step fix guide for a root cause category.' It identifies the specific verb (get) and resource (fix guide). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like qa_probe_explain_failure, but the name and description make the purpose distinct.

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 example query 'What do I do about feature_flag_disabled issues?' implies when to use the tool (when you have a specific root cause and need a fix guide). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison to alternatives.

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