suggest_repairs

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: 'The server never writes to ETS or the bus,' ensuring agents know this is a non-destructive suggestion tool. It also clarifies that suggestions are reviewable, not automatic. Without annotations, this level of disclosure is commendable.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose. The second paragraph provides concrete examples and workflow context without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not detailed here), the description sufficiently covers behavior, workflow integration with generate_ets_group_addresses, and non-destructive nature. It could mention output format briefly, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds value by explaining the tool's operation and what it accomplishes, compensating for the lack of parameter details. The schema coverage is 100%.

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: 'Propose concrete fixes for the project's findings — repair, don't just flag.' It provides specific examples of fixes (infer DPT, correct sub-DPT, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that suggestions feed into generate_ets_group_addresses and that the server never writes to ETS or the bus.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for concrete fixes based on project findings) and provides workflow context: 'Suggestions only — a human reviews them; accepted new GAs feed into generate_ets_group_addresses.' It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the context implies appropriate usage.

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