suggest_fixes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. While 'suggestions' implies non-destructive behavior, the description does not explicitly state that no files are modified, nor does it mention any permissions, side effects, or mode semantics ('real'). This is insufficient transparency for a tool that could be confused with fix application tools.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no redundant phrasing. The '[mode: real]' prefix is unexplained and adds a slight ambiguity, but overall the text is appropriately concise and scannable.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, the effect of maxSuggestions, what happens if issueIds is omitted, or the meaning of 'mode: real'. This incomplete context would require the agent to guess or inspect the schema deeper.

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?

The description mentions none of the schema parameters (projectPath, issueIds, maxSuggestions). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description entirely fails to add meaning to the parameter structure. An agent would have no idea what values to pass or how they affect behavior.

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 function: 'Generate rule-based fix suggestions for detected issues.' It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('fix suggestions'), and the phrase 'rule-based' adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_fix (applies fixes) and rollback_fix (rolls back changes).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having detected issues first), exclusions (e.g., not for applying fixes), or typical workflows. This absence leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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