command_fix_bugs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool 'fixes' issues implying mutation, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or scope of changes. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies code.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence with no redundancy. However, it lacks front-loading of critical information such as whether it modifies files or requires arguments.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the tool's purpose but omits important context like the extent of fixes, safety, and typical use cases.

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% (one parameter with a description). The description adds examples like '--changed' and '--dry-run', which help clarify usage beyond the schema. However, the tool description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 detects and fixes bugs, anti-patterns, and code issues. It uses a specific verb-resource pair, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like agent_bug_hunter or command_refactor, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_bug_hunter, command_refactor). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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