tarn_fix_plan

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 states the tool analyzes and returns a plan, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some context but lacks depth expected for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, the second clarifies the two modes of operation. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects. The description covers the main functionality and dual mode, but does not detail the return format (e.g., structure of the plan, error handling, pagination). Given the lack of output schema, the description could be more complete to help the agent understand what to expect.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the dual usage (report vs. running first) and notes that path, env, tag, vars, cwd are used when path is provided. However, this is largely a summary of the schema; the description does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameter semantics.

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 it analyzes a Tarn JSON report and returns a prioritized fix plan with next actions, evidence, and remediation hints. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like tarn_run (executes tests) and tarn_report (likely just outputs 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 explains the two modes: accept a report object directly or accept the same inputs as tarn_run to run first, then plan. This provides clear context on when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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