Fix timeline

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the exact stages of the timeline, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the key information (the ordered stages), and the second sentence gives a clear use case. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description does not explicitly describe the return format, but listing the stages implies the content. The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and the description is sufficient for understanding what the tool does and when to use it.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 returns an ordered timeline of a fix attempt with specific stages (dispatched, started, branch, commit, PR opened, CI, completed/failed). It also explicitly ties the tool to debugging 'why did this fix fail?', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_fix_context or get_similar_bugs.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this to debug why did this fix fail?'), which is a specific scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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