get_quick_fixes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a list of quick fixes with fixId, label, and category, and lists supported fix types. It also notes the zero-based line numbers and the prerequisite. This provides good behavioral context for an agent.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, usage example, output format, list of supported fixes, and important notes. It is front-loaded and each section adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the output format and listing supported fixes. It also covers prerequisites and parameter usage. However, it does not address edge cases like no fixes available or error handling.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds some value with a usage example and notes that column is optional, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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. It uses a specific verb ('list') and identifies the resource ('available fixes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'apply_quick_fix' by focusing on listing fixes.

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 that 'load_project' must be called first, which is a crucial prerequisite. It also notes the zero-based line numbering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or direct alternatives among siblings.

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