get_code_fixes

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return envelope structure (items, totalCount, truncated, limit) and the default limit of 100, and implies a read-only operation ('reviewed and applied').

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains return format. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description compensates by detailing the envelope structure. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., solution must be loaded) and error conditions. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100% (all 4 parameters described). The description adds minor value by mentioning sorting by title and default limit, slightly augmenting the schema. Baseline 3 is exceeded.

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 'Get available code fixes for a specific diagnostic at a file location' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_code_actions which handle other code actions.

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 implies usage after identifying a diagnostic at a file location, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks exclusion guidance.

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