get_quick_fixes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It fails to mention that providing a URL as the 'results' parameter triggers an audit before generating fixes, a critical behavior only noted in the parameter description. It also omits details about side effects, safety, or idempotency.

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 two sentences long, efficiently front-loading the purpose and return formats. There is no fluff or irrelevant information; every word earns its place.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the dual behavior of the 'results' parameter (object vs. URL) nor describe the structure of the returned fixes, which is essential for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the 'before/after code examples' and 'formatted as markdown, HTML, or JSON' already covered by the schema, adding no new semantic value beyond what the parameter descriptions provide.

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: 'Get specific fix suggestions with before/after code examples from audit results.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('fix suggestions') and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'explain_issue' or 'get_accessibility_score' by focusing on actionable fixes with code examples.

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 implies that the tool requires audit results but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'explain_issue' for explanation, 'get_accessibility_score' for scoring). It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer.

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