get_quick_fixes

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses zero-based line numbers and the prerequisite. It describes the output format. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, which is a minor gap.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, usage example, output format, list of supported fixes, important note, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, output, supported fixes, and prerequisite. It lacks details on error handling or behavior when no fixes exist, but given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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%, with all parameters described. The description adds the usage example but does not provide significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., zero-based is already in 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 the tool lists available fixes for a problem at a position, with verb 'list' and resource 'fixes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'apply_quick_fix' which applies a fix, and 'get_diagnostics' which provides problems.

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 a usage example and explicitly states the prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). It lists supported fix categories, guiding agent on when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives.

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