get_fix_examples

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation (returning examples) but does not mention any required permissions, side effects, or response details. The description is adequate but lacks depth beyond the basic purpose.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the second explains the input options. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 should clarify what the returned data looks like. It only says 'before/after code examples' but not the format (e.g., strings, code blocks). While the tool is simple, the lack of output specification leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing example algorithms ('RSA, ECDH, ECDSA') and clarifying that 'ruleId' comes from a finding, which supplements the schema descriptions. However, it does not elaborate on input format or constraints beyond what is in 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 returns 'before/after code examples for migrating a classical algorithm to a post-quantum / hybrid replacement.' The verb 'Return' and resource 'code examples' are specific, and the tool is clearly distinct from sibling tools like 'apply_verified_patch', 'inventory_crypto', and 'list_rules'.

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 tells users to provide an 'algorithm' (e.g., RSA, ECDH) or a 'ruleId' from a finding, giving clear input options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as when a user needs examples versus applying a patch or listing rules.

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