run_iterative_fix_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits such as 'regression detection' and 'auto-rollback,' which are important safety mechanisms, and 'resumeToken support' indicating resumability. However, it does not describe the tool's side effects on the project (e.g., modifying files), error behavior, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for a mutation-oriented tool.

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, with two sentences that are front-loaded with key capabilities. It uses no filler words and effectively communicates the core purpose and notable features in a compact format.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It provides no information about return values, success/failure indicators, iteration behavior, or how the loop interacts with other tools like apply_fix or rollback_fix. The pointer to documentation is helpful but insufficient for an AI agent acting on the description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It mentions 'resumeToken' and 'hybrid' (matching strategy enum), which clarifies two parameters, but the other seven parameters (projectPath, autoApply, maxIterations, acceptableThreshold, etc.) are not explained. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Self-healing test → fix → re-test loop with regression detection, auto-rollback, and resumeToken support.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('iterative fix loop'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by describing the integrated loop rather than a single action like rollback_fix or apply_fix.

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 labels the tool as 'headline tool,' which implies it is the primary entry point for iterative fixing, and references external docs for more detail. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or provide any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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