get_quick_fixes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that fixes are returned in different formats, but it fails to mention a key behavioral trait: if a URL is provided in the 'results' parameter, an audit will be run first. It also does not disclose that the 'includeCode' parameter can omit code examples. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase earns its place. No wasted words or redundant details.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with a well-documented schema, but the description omits important behavioral context (the URL-triggered audit and the includeCode toggle). While the schema covers these, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate side effects. Given the low complexity, a 3 is reasonable.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning output formats that correspond to the 'format' parameter. It does not add further meaning to 'results' or 'includeCode'.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('fix suggestions'), and a source ('from audit results'). It also mentions the output formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools like explain_issue or audit_url.

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 usage context: use this tool when you have audit results and need actionable fixes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough. No explicit exclusions are given, so a 4 is appropriate.

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