synthesize_patch_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the internal approach ('LLM candidates + genetic algorithm evolution + counterexample feedback') and returns a 'SynthesisResult dict.' However, it does not disclose whether the synthesis runs synchronously or asynchronously, whether it modifies files, or how long it may take. The existence of sibling synthesis_status_tool suggests background execution, but that's not stated.

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?

Three sentences, each with a purpose: state the action, describe the engine, and state the return type. No filler or repetition.

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 11 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the overall goal and algorithm but omits parameter semantics, invocation context, return structure details, and lifecycle behavior. This leaves significant gaps for a complex tool.

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% and the description does not mention any of the 11 parameters (e.g., projectId, workingDirectory, testCommand, targetMutantIds). It provides no guidance on required inputs or how to specify the target mutant, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Start' with the resource 'CEGIS synthesis,' clearly stating the goal: 'generate a patch that kills a surviving mutant.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like synthesis_status_tool and cancel_synthesis_tool, which manage ongoing synthesis.

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 implies the tool is used when a mutant has survived and a patch is needed, stating 'to generate a patch that kills a surviving mutant.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear that this starts synthesis, whereas siblings like synthesis_status_tool or list_synthesis_runs_tool query state. No exclusions are given.

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