tap_fix

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

The description details the tool's actions (runs tap.doctor, collects diagnostics) and return shape, but the claim of 'repair' conflicts with readOnlyHint=true annotation, implying the tool is read-only but description suggests modifications. This contradiction reduces transparency.

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 (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering workflow, return data, and tier differences. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return shape (same as tap.doctor plus diagnostics and patches) and tier limitations. It misses why timeout exists or prerequisites for site/name, but overall adequately covers usage for a 3-param tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions timeout default (already in schema). No additional parameter context.

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 diagnoses and repairs broken taps, referencing tap.doctor and specifying when to use it (verdict=broken). It distinguishes from siblings like tap_doctor by explaining the workflow.

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 says 'Use when tap.doctor returns verdict=broken', providing clear context. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tap_doctor is implied as a prerequisite.

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