generate_fix_prompt

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

The description explicitly discloses side effects: 'Side-effecting (class B per D99.V); writes the sibling fix-prompt.txt via atomic temp+rename.' It also transparently explains output truncation behavior: 'the MCP wire response's prompt_text is capped at 262144 bytes (D99.U) -- when truncated, the response carries truncated:true + bytes_omitted.' This goes beyond typical annotations and fully informs about side effects and output limitations.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then the return values, then side effects, and finally truncation details. Each clause adds necessary information, and while it is somewhat long, it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the complexity of the behavior it describes.

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?

The description covers behavioral aspects thoroughly (side effects, truncation) and mentions return values, but it lacks explanation of the input parameters and when to use the tool. Given the simple schema (two string fields) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and usage context.

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?

The description does not relate the input parameters (`report` and `session`) to their meaning or usage. It mentions 'from a VibeRevert check report' but never explicitly states that the `report` parameter is the report ID or that `session` refers to a session. This leaves the schema fields completely unexplained.

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's function: 'Render a fix-prompt from a VibeRevert check report.' It uses a specific verb ('Render') and a specific resource ('fix-prompt'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fix-prompt generation from check reports.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context or prerequisites, such as 'use when a check report is available' or comparisons to other tools like create_checkpoint. The only usage hint is implicit in the tool's purpose, but no explicit direction is given.

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