fix_code

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses that it returns structured edit instructions with line numbers, severity, and confidence. It also mentions before/after patches. This covers the essential output behavior. However, it does not discuss any side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., whether it modifies the input code).

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 concise: two sentences and an example. It front-loads the core action and output, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage hint, output structure, and follow-up tool. It is sufficient for an agent to understand how to use it. Minor gap: no mention of asynchronous behavior or failure modes, but not critical for this 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?

All 4 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond restating the schema; it mentions 'vulnerable code' and provides an example but does not clarify nuances like the purpose of 'framework' or 'format' beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 it takes vulnerable code and returns fix suggestions with before/after patches. The verb 'fix' and resource 'code' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_code or verify_fix, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool over others.

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 a clear use case ('vulnerable code') and suggests to use verify_fix afterwards. It also gives an example. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or describe prerequisites beyond the required parameters.

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