mem_repair_propose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Return') but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. This is a gap, but the purpose implies non-destructive behavior.

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 action and resource. No wasted words; it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains the tool's action but does not describe the return format, any prerequisites (e.g., existing health report), or behavioral constraints. It is adequate but could be more informative.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'project_key'. The tool description does not explain what 'project_key' is or its format. This leaves the parameter underdocumented.

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 that the tool returns governed repair proposals based on the latest health report for a project. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('repair proposals'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like mem_repair_apply (applies repairs) and mem_health (returns health report).

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 in a workflow: first check health report (mem_health), then propose repairs (this tool), then apply (mem_repair_apply). However, it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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