aether_get_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals RAG dependence, API key requirements, template fallback, and the verify-only-in-fix-mode behavior. This is substantial, though it does not disclose response shape details or potential error/rate-limit 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?

Three tightly written sentences front-load the purpose, then explain the mode switch, then disclose the credential dependency. There is no filler, and each sentence 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 eight-parameter schema, high schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral branches and dependencies. It could be slightly more specific about the exact response shape, but it explains both modes and the key constraint, making it sufficient for an agent to select and call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-interaction semantics: html omission switches modes institution, and verify is 'Ignored in explanation mode.' This goes beyond a simple restatement of schema fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a RAG-powered fix OR explanation for a WCAG violation.' It clearly distinguishes the two operating modes (fix with html, explanation without) and is semantically distinct from siblings like aether_check_html and aether_verify_fix.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: 'Pass html ... to get a concrete fixHtml' versus 'Omit html to get a rule-level explanation.' It also notes the ALLCHEMY_API_KEY requirement and fallback behavior. No explicit comparison with sibling tools is provided, but the mode-based guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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