Fix timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that it is read-only and returns events with 'ts, stage, detail' shape. While not overly detailed (e.g., no error cases or rate limits), it is sufficient for a harmless read operation and adds context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance and alternatives. It is concise and front-loaded with key info. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points) but no waste.

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 simplicity (read-only, two parameters), the description fully covers the return shape and usage context. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return format. Annotations handle safety concerns, so completeness is high.

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%: both 'fixId' and 'project_id' have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 it returns the ordered lifecycle of one fix attempt with specific stages (dispatched, started, branch, commit, PR opened, CI, completed/failed) and data fields (timestamps, PR URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like refresh_ci and get_report_timeline by explicitly naming them as alternatives.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'to debug "why did this fix fail?" after dispatch_fix'. It also provides alternatives: use refresh_ci to re-poll GitHub CI, or get_report_timeline for the whole report thread. This guides the agent on selecting the correct tool.

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