repair_advice

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms the tool is read-only and does not mutate geometry. The description adds that the tool emits a plan, not direct edits, providing helpful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from a sibling. 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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input semantics and usage context well. Minor gap: it could mention the structure of the output plan, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

Despite zero schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: error_text as full validate()/export()/last_error() text, goal as the intended edit, and context from locate_gate_defects()/compare(). This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 returns structured repair recipes for agents to implement, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling repair_hints by noting repair_advice provides a sequenced plan versus short tips.

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 explains when to use this tool (when a sequenced plan is needed) and contrasts with repair_hints. It also specifies what inputs to provide (error_text, goal, context) from other tools. However, it does not explicitly state 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.