roslyn:get_code_fixes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the return type (list of fix titles and descriptions) but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, any side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., solution must be loaded). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise: two sentences plus a numbered workflow list. It front-loads the purpose and uses structured steps. No wasted words.

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 the basic purpose and workflow but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., no fixes available, invalid parameters). Since there is no output schema, the return format is only superficially described. Adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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 each parameter described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and there is no additional value, so score remains 3.

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 gets available code fixes for a specific diagnostic and returns a list of fix titles and descriptions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like apply_code_fix (which applies a fix) and get_diagnostics (which finds issues) through the explicit workflow.

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 clear workflow: use get_diagnostics first, then get_code_fixes to see options, then apply_code_fix. This tells the agent when to use this tool in the sequence, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or exclude alternatives.

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