get_quick_fixes

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

The description mentions that it uses zero-based line numbers and requires load_project to be called first. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose behavior for edge cases like invalid positions, no fixes found, or error handling.

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 usage example, output format, list of supported fixes, and important notes (zero-based, prerequisite). Every sentence adds information 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the output structure (list with fixId, label, category) and enumerates supported fix types. It does not cover error conditions or limits, but for a listing tool this is adequate.

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% and descriptions exist for each parameter. The description adds value by reinforcing zero-based numbering, noting that column is optional, and providing a usage example that clarifies parameter ordering and syntax.

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 that the tool lists available fixes for a problem at a specific position, with a usage example and a list of supported fix types (UndefinedType, UnusedImport, UnhandledException). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_diagnostics or apply_quick_fix.

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. However, it does not offer guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_quick_fix or when no fixes exist.

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