suggest_fix

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at safety filtering ('public-officer-friendly') but omits whether the recommendation is deterministic, requires network access, or has side effects. No details on authorization or rate limits are given.

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 very concise (one sentence). However, it omits essential information, making it incomplete rather than efficiently informative. Every word serves a purpose, but the content is insufficient.

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 presence of an output schema and two simple parameters, the description should at least define the core concept ('finding') and the role of each parameter. It fails to do so, assuming background knowledge. The tool's context is poorly captured.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameter purpose or constraints. The two parameters, rule_id and unsafe_code, remain entirely undefined in the description, adding no value beyond the schema.

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 returns a 'safe-fix recommendation for a finding' with a specific qualifier ('public-officer-friendly'). This uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings like check_package or scan_code, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_rule or run_scan). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage independently.

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