converge_advice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output format (Markdown), content of suggestions (priority, risk, code template, description), supported patterns, and mode precedence. It doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'get suggestions/advice' makes that clear enough. Minor gap: no mention of timeout behavior or edge cases.

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 well-organized with headers, bullet lists, and clear sections for modes, outputs, supported patterns, and arguments. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because the pattern list and return details overlap with what the output schema likely covers, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two-mode advisory tool, the description covers mode selection, output structure, valid pattern IDs, and the relationship to diagnose_job. It is largely self-sufficient, but omits the timeout parameter and does not specify behavior when both diagnosis_result and pattern_ids are empty, which are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains diagnosis_result and pattern_ids, including format, source, and precedence. However, the timeout parameter is completely omitted from the Args section, leaving an agent unable to determine its meaning or default behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Get auto-fix suggestions'), resource ('convergence problems diagnosed by the Solver Doctor'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the advice tool tied to diagnose_job. It also explains both usage modes, so an agent can tell this apart from other analysis tools without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

Explicitly documents two modes: from diagnosis_result (output of diagnose_job) or direct pattern_ids, with a clear precedence rule ('If provided, pattern_ids is ignored'). It names the companion tool diagnose_job. It could be more explicit about when not to use it or what to do if no diagnosis is available, but the mode-based guidance is strong.

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