testpass_fix_list

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey the return format (Markdown fix-list / copy-paste artifact), which is useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether access is read-only, or how the alias relates to the canonical report at runtime.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause 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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the returned artifact (Markdown fix-list) and its discovery purpose. Only a note on how it differs operationally from testpass_report_md would round it out.

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% for the single run_id parameter and its schema description already explains it is the id returned by testpass_run. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the Markdown fix-list for a TestPass run') and explicitly positions itself relative to the markdown report, which helps distinguish it from the sibling testpass_report_md. The 'alias' framing is clear, though it slightly raises the question of why the alias exists separately.

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 phrase 'so agents can discover the copy-paste repair artifact directly' implies this is the entry point for the repair artifact, but it never states when to prefer this over testpass_report_md or testpass_report_json. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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