generate_patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a patch, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether the patch is applied automatically or suggested, potential side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter note into the main sentence without sacrificing clarity.

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's complexity (generating patches for security issues is a non-trivial mutation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like success/failure outcomes, patch format, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that likely has significant operational impact, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'issue_id' as 'The ID of the issue to generate a patch for,' adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. This clarifies the parameter's purpose, but it doesn't provide details like format examples, valid ranges, or dependencies. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 purpose: 'Generate an automated patch/fix for a security issue.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('patch/fix'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'approve_patch' or 'get_issue' by focusing on creation rather than approval or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'mark_false_positive', which might involve issue resolution.

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 provides minimal guidance: it implies usage when a security issue needs a patch, but offers no explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used before or after 'approve_patch', or if it's suitable for all issue types. Without such context, the agent lacks clear direction on optimal tool selection.

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