fix_bug

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'using Aider,' which implies an external dependency but doesn't state that the tool modifies code, may require git access, or could have side effects on the file system. There is no mention of permissions, reversibility, or failure modes. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at six words with no wasted text. However, it is so brief that it lacks substance, which hurts other dimensions. For conciseness alone, it earns credit for being efficient, but it is not structured or informative enough to be a model of good tool descriptions.

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's complexity (4 parameters, mutation behavior) and lack of annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what Aider is, how the bug will be fixed, which files are affected, or what the output will be. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves major gaps about usage and effects.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and no extra context is given.

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 verb 'fix' combined with resource 'bug' clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like add_feature, refactor, and improve_code by targeting bugs specifically. However, 'using Aider' may be unclear if the agent doesn't know Aider, and it lacks additional context about the scope or manner of fixing.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does, without specifying conditions (e.g., 'use when there is a bug') or exclusions (e.g., 'for new functionality use add_feature'). No naming of sibling tools or decision criteria.

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