ruff_fix

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'auto-fix' but does not clarify that this modifies files (destructive behavior), nor does it explain what 'where possible' means (some violations may be unfixable). The 'unsafe' parameter is named but its implications are not described.

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 a single sentence, very concise. It earns its place by clearly stating the core purpose. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming overly verbose.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about return values, behavior (e.g., modifies files in place), or safety considerations. Given the presence of sibling tools, the description does not help the agent decide when to use this tool. Completeness is insufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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: 'Auto-fix linting violations where possible'. It uses a specific verb ('fix') and resource ('linting violations'), and the name 'ruff_fix' together with the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ruff_check' (check only) and 'ruff_format' (formatting).

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 minimal usage guidance. It implies the tool is for automatically fixing linting issues, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'ruff_check' or 'ruff_format'. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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