Propose Safe Text Fixes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'returns' implies it), nor does it explain prerequisites like requiring a prior scan or any side effects, leaving the agent with ambiguity.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and every word earns its place. There is no redundancy or wasted language.

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 is adequate for a simple, parameterless tool, but it leaves gaps: it doesn't define what constitutes a 'current scan', doesn't describe the structure of returned fix candidates, and doesn't connect to the apply_fix sibling workflow. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 schema has zero parameters, so coverage is trivially 100%, but the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by mentioning 'current scan', indicating that the tool relies on the scan context rather than explicit arguments, which is valuable beyond the empty schema.

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 that the tool returns exact low-risk fix candidates from the current scan, using the specific verb 'returns' and a distinct resource. It differentiates from siblings like apply_fix by focusing on proposal/generation rather than application.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The mention of 'current scan' implies a prerequisite but does not explicitly say to use it after doctor_scan and before apply_fix, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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