diagnose_and_fix

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It clearly states 'NOTHING is written' and describes the output structure. It does not contradict known behavior, but could explicitly mention read-only nature.

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?

Very concise, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, output format, edge case, prerequisite. Includes USAGE and OUTPUT lines for clarity without redundancy.

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?

Covers all key aspects: what it does, usage pattern, output, side effects (none), prerequisites, and edge case (empty file). No output schema exists, but description adequately explains return value.

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 'filePath'. The description repeats 'Path to source file' without adding extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Clearly states the tool combines diagnostics and quick-fix computation in one call, with a specific verb (diagnose and compute) and resource (file). Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_diagnostics' and 'get_quick_fixes' which are separate steps.

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?

Provides explicit usage: 'Requires load_project to be called first' and 'apply the returned edits yourself, then reload the project.' Implies it should be used when both diagnostics and fixes are needed, but doesn't explicitly say when not to use it.

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