check_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the two result states ('still_failing', 'not_seen') and the important side effect that a 'not_seen' result mutates .agentsensor/status.json by moving the error from 'open' to 'resolved'. It omits whether the check is instantaneous or waits/samples the dev server, which matters for a recurrence check.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loaded with the imperative call condition, then the verification purpose, then the outcome enumeration. No filler and every clause 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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly compensates by naming both return states and the underlying status.json mutation. It remains slightly incomplete about timing (does the check wait for the fix to take effect?) and the absence of an error, but an agent has enough to call it 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 all three parameters (error_id, since, project) are already documented in the schema, including the 'since' fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verifying whether an error_id recurred after a code fix. It also names its trigger condition and the two possible outcomes, letting an agent distinguish it from resolve_error (manual resolution) and get_error_detail (inspection only) without opening any 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 prescribes when to call it ("ALWAYS call this after applying a code fix for an error_id"), which is strong sequencing guidance. It does not, however, clarify when to use it instead of the sibling resolve_error, which appears to have overlapping resolution semantics.

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