firepass_trio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions sandboxing and a fix loop but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or potential long runtime. Behavioral traits like file modifications or error handling are not disclosed.

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: one purposeful sentence followed by a well-structured argument list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 complexity (5 params, orchestration, output schema present), the description is adequate but not thorough. It omits details on the fix loop, output format, and potential runtime warnings. The output schema reduces burden, but gaps remain.

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%, but the description explains each parameter's meaning (prompt, cwd, context, max_iterations, max_review_rounds), adding value beyond the schema's titles. This compensates well for the missing schema 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 runs a full FirePass trio (research → implement → review → fix loop), using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (firepass_researcher, firepass_worker, firepass_reviewer) by being the orchestrator.

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 usage: use this tool to run the complete trio workflow. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, such as using individual sub-agents directly.

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