driftguard_auto_heal

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: that the operation kills processes, that it is 'transazionale' (implying atomicity/rollback on failure), and that it restores resource availability. It does not say what privileges are required, whether the repair is irreversible, what exactly counts as a 'zombie' process, or what the caller receives on success or partial failure.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists the three effects; every clause carries information. It is slightly dense and mixes the atomicity claim with the step list, but nothing is redundant.

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 input is trivial and fully documented, but the tool itself performs a destructive, multi-stage repair with no output schema and no annotations. For that complexity, the description should say more about what state it leaves behind and how failures are reported. As written it is adequate to attempt a call but thin for a high-impact mutation.

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?

There is only one parameter, errorLog, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add format expectations or examples for the error log beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct for a single, fully documented parameter.

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 names a specific composite action (transactional auto-repair) and enumerates its sub-steps: diagnose the error, kill zombie processes, restore resource availability. That is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as driftguard_diagnose_failure, driftguard_kill_process, or driftguard_selective_rollback, which appear to do overlapping work.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this rather than driftguard_diagnose_failure or driftguard_kill_process, and no stated preconditions. The phrase 'in un unico passaggio' (single pass) only weakly implies this is the one-shot alternative to chaining the individual siblings together. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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