tap_fix

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

The description adds details beyond annotations: it runs tap.doctor first, collects specific diagnostics, and clarifies free vs. Pro capabilities. It does not contradict annotations; readOnlyHint is consistent with only returning proposals.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by details in a logical order. It is concise but includes necessary behavioral and tier information.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return shape (diagnostics and patches) and tier differences. It covers all aspects of the tool's functionality for effective use.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only implies site and name are needed for the tap.

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's purpose: 'Diagnose and repair a broken tap.' It specifies the sub-tool used, the diagnostics collected, and the return structure. This distinguishes it from siblings like tap_doctor.

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 a clear condition for use. It implies when not to use (when tap.doctor doesn't indicate broken) and mentions tier differences for usage context.

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