smart_fix_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely mentions an 'integrated workflow' but does not explain what steps occur internally, whether the tool modifies the script, if it creates backups, or what happens when auto_apply is false. The cryptic '99% output reduction' adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise. However, the inclusion of ' - 99% output reduction' is cryptic and reduces clarity. The structure is front-loaded with the key workflow steps but could be reworded for better comprehension.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the expected output, behavior when auto_apply is false, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool's operation.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage examples beyond stating the workflow. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is an integrated workflow for automatic script fixing, mentioning three steps: diagnosis, instruction generation, and patch. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are more granular (e.g., diagnose_script_issues, apply_code_patch) by being a combined pipeline. However, the phrase '99% output reduction' is unclear and does not add clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this integrated tool versus the individual diagnose/patch siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, restrictions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to select the appropriate tool.

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