auto_rebuild_fix_loop

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'create' aligns with that. However, no additional behavioral context is provided—there is no mention of side effects, whether the plan is persisted, what 'resumable' entails, or if it overwrites existing plans. The description adds the word 'resumable' but fails to explain implications.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and includes the key input sources. Perfect conciseness—it says exactly what it does without padding.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the generated plan looks like, how to interpret results, or what 'resumable' means in practice. Given the lack of schema documentation and output schema, this leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about usage and outcomes.

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, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to 'runtimeError' and 'observedCapabilities' via the phrase 'runtime errors and observed capabilities', but completely ignores 'taskId' and 'maxIterations'. No parameter format, constraints, or purpose for the omitted parameters is given.

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 creates a resumable env-fix loop plan from runtime errors and observed capabilities. The verb 'create' and the resource 'resumable env-fix loop plan' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'diagnose_environment' or 'probe_runtime_capabilities', though the notion of a 'loop plan' provides some implicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context such as 'when you need to automate an iterative fix loop' or exclude cases where other tools are better. The sibling list is not referenced, so an agent receives no direction on selecting this over similar diagnostics tools.

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