fix_component

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 lists the auto-fixes (import paths, displayName, path conversion), but does not disclose what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, or if the file is modified in-place. The transparency is moderate.

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 efficiently lists the specific issues it fixes. No redundant words, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the what but not the outcome or error handling. For a tool that modifies files, details on success/failure signals or confirmation are missing, making it somewhat incomplete for an AI agent.

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 for the single 'path' parameter is 100% with a schema description 'Path to the component directory'. The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter (e.g., format, relative vs absolute path, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Auto-fix common issues in a component' and enumerates specific issues (broken import paths, missing displayName, path conversion). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like review_component (review) or generate_component (creation).

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?

While the description implies usage when a component has these specific issues, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., improve_component) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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