get_fix_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what the returned text contains (ordered problems, locations, expected fixes, plus guardrail rules), but says nothing about behavior when no prior run exists or how results are scoped beyond the folder.

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?

Front-loaded with the core return value, then a short elaboration of contents, then a compact Args block. The clause about never putting keys in code and never removing features is illustrative rather than essential, but it is short enough to earn 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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return shape, the description only needs to establish the dependency on check_app and the path contract, which it does. The one gap is the no-prior-run scenario, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 carries the load — it explains the single parameter is an absolute path to the app's folder and must match the path used with check_app. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'string' schema, though the absolute-path requirement is repeated rather than expanded with examples.

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 — returns the fix request written by the last check_app run for a given app folder — and names the sibling that produces it. An agent can immediately distinguish this from check_app, scanner_status, or preview_upload.

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 clearly implies it is used after check_app and enforces the linkage by requiring 'the same path given to check_app.' It does not explicitly say what to do if no check_app run has happened, nor exclude any cases, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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