krl_safe_auto_repair

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden. It usefully signals that repairs are 'safe' and output is 'verified,' implying the original code is returned transformed rather than mutated in place, but it does not state what happens on unrecoverable hazards, whether changes are reversible, or what 'verified' checks.

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?

One dense sentence with the action and hazard enumeration front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical list is long but each item is informative rather than redundant.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, and 'outputs verified repaired code' hints at the return value. But with no output schema, the description should more fully explain what the returned payload contains and how failure/partial-repair cases are reported.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that it takes KRL code. The description adds no format, size, or encoding constraints beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (repairs) and resource (KRL code), and enumerates the concrete hazards handled (BOM/encoding, advance run desyncs, inline form folds, trailing whitespace, uncommitted payload), which goes well beyond a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the linting sibling krl_lint_snippet, so it falls short of a 5.

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 license prerequisite (KUKA KRL Professional) is a useful gating condition stated up front. However, there is no guidance on when to repair versus when to lint first (krl_lint_snippet) or run diagnostics, so the choice among siblings is left implicit.

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