fixgraph_get_fixes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full transparency burden. It only states 'get all verified fixes'—a read operation with no mention of side effects, authentication, rate limits, or limitations, which is insufficient for full disclosure.

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 sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word earns its place. No wasted text.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential purpose and input. Could be enhanced by briefly noting that an empty list is returned if no fixes exist, but this is minor.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter description. The tool description adds 'by its ID or slug' but does not enrich beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

'Get all verified fixes for a specific FixGraph issue by its ID or slug' clearly states the verb (get), resource (verified fixes), and input (ID/slug). It naturally distinguishes from siblings: fixgraph_search finds issues, fixgraph_submit_fix sends fixes.

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 (after obtaining an issue ID from search) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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