show_fix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It explicitly says 'Nothing is applied' and differentiates output by resource type (unified diff for Terraform, AWS CLI command otherwise). This is critical behavioral transparency for a tool that might otherwise be assumed to apply changes.

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 compact: three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then two sentences of essential behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the core functionality, safety profile, and output format, and an output schema exists. However, with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, leaving parameters unexplained creates a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. It does not mention finding_id, repo, cur, or profile semantics, leaving the agent to guess their meanings. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 opens with 'Generate the change for one finding', a specific verb-object pair that clearly identifies the tool's function. The output form ('as a diff or a command') and the scope ('one finding') further refine the purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze waste or changes rather than produce fixes.

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?

It states 'Nothing is applied. The caller reviews and merges,' which makes the intended use case clear: generate a proposed change for human review. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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