improve_code

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this tool modifies code files, may commit changes (auto_commit param), or has any side effects, leaving the agent without critical safety information.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. It is concise and well-structured, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Despite the rich schema and output schema, the description omits essential context for a code-modifying tool. There is no mention of side effects, commit behavior, or filesystem interaction, and with no annotations, the description is insufficient for safe use.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters (files, model, auto_commit, instruction, project_path). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('improve code quality, fix bugs, or implement features') using Aider, which gives a specific verb and resource. However, it overlaps with sibling tools like fix_bug, add_feature, and refactor without distinguishing itself, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description even includes 'fix bugs' and 'implement features', which are covered by sibling tools, but it does not explain when to choose this tool or when to choose a sibling.

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