tarn_fix_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool analyzes and returns a plan, but doesn't state whether it has side effects (e.g., creates files, modifies state) or if it is read-only. The name suggests planning, but confirmation is missing.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the two input modes. No extraneous words or repetition. Every sentence adds essential 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters (including nested objects), the description is fairly complete about inputs but omits details about the output format (e.g., structure of the plan) and any prerequisites. It covers the two modes well but could describe what the plan contains for an agent to process the result.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds significant value by clarifying the two invocation modes: either supplying a `report` or the same inputs as tarn_run (path, env, tag, vars). This contextual information is not captured in the individual parameter descriptions.

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 analyzes a Tarn JSON report to produce a prioritized fix plan with next actions, evidence, and remediation hints. It distinguishes from siblings like tarn_run (which runs tests but doesn't plan) by explicitly mentioning both modes: accepting a report or running tarn first.

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 explains the two usage modes—passing a report object or the same inputs as tarn_run—which helps an agent decide how to invoke it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison to alternatives like tarn_run_agent.

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