check_patch_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It discloses the three possible return values (COMPLETE, INCOMPLETE, VACUOUS), explains what INCOMPLETE includes (a surviving violating input), and clarifies the meaning of VACUOUS. This is excellent transparency for a decision-making tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately providing key behavioral outcomes. Every sentence is informative, with no wasted words.

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 fully covers the tool's purpose and outputs, which is critical since there is no output schema. It explains the three-way result and what INCOMPLETE returns. It lacks explicit prerequisites or a 'when not to use' statement, but the context is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter defect_class, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides an example ('e.g. A, B, C'). No additional semantics are needed.

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 with a specific verb ('Decide') and resource ('modelled bounds-check repair'), and explicitly distinguishes its scope ('eliminates EVERY violating input, not just a known one') from simpler checks. This differentiates it from sibling tools like check_constant_time and check_masking.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to ensure a repair is complete across all violating inputs, rather than testing a single known case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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