list_fixes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: output includes per-change share of critical-path risk eliminated and number of routes cut, plus prioritization by choke points.

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 compact: the first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output details, and the second provides practical guidance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how it behaves. No critical calling information is missing.

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% for the single optional 'app' parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('remediation plan'), and clearly defines the output as the fewest changes removing the most risk, ordered by choke points. It is conceptually distinct from siblings like list_attack_paths and explain_attack_path, which focus on attack paths rather than prioritized remediation actions.

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 gives clear usage context: it is 'usually the right answer to what should we do', implying it is the go-to tool for deciding on remediation actions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use case is clearly conveyed.

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