ruvltra_code_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool's name ('Fix code') without explaining side effects, whether it returns patched code or a diff, or how it handles incomplete errors. It adds little beyond the tool name and does not inform the agent about the operation's nature beyond 'fix'.

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 only two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary behavior and keeps the quality tip separate. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could have used the space to clarify parameters.

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 zero annotations and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not state what the output contains (output schema exists, so that helps), what language/timeout defaults are, or any prerequisites. The agent would have to infer most invocation details from the tool name and parameter names alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps roughly to code ('code'), error ('using error details'), and instruction ('optional guidance'), but does not explain language or timeoutMs. Most parameters remain semantically undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific action ('Fix code') and the core input ('error details' and 'optional guidance'), which clearly distinguishes it from generation, review, refactor, explain, and other siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with ruvltra_code_refactor, which also modifies code, leaving some ambiguity between fix and refactor.

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 a quality tip ('provide instructions and context in English') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like ruvltra_code_refactor or ruvltra_code_review. There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where a sibling would be more appropriate.

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