sourcery_build_fix_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context beyond the title: it describes handling of DEPENDENCY findings via fixed_versions + manifest_file_path and conditional rendering of the dependency chain when dependency_graph is present. However, it never states whether the tool is read-only, what the generated prompt looks like, or any output/permission characteristics.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the conditional dependency-graph detail is placed after the main statement. No filler, though the second sentence is dense with schema-field references.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what it returns and whether a finding must first be serialized. It says nothing about the output prompt structure or how to supply finding_json, leaving key information for correct invocation missing.

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 is 0% for the single param finding_json. The description hints that the input is 'a Sourcery finding object' and references finding-internal fields, but it never explains that the param is a serialized JSON string or how to obtain it. It adds marginal meaning over the bare schema without fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Build a minimal-change agent prompt from a Sourcery finding object'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling list/get/update tools. It is clear about what it produces, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative it should be chosen over.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this after obtaining a finding and before attempting a fix. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. sourcery_get_finding to first fetch the object).

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