remediate_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it produces a bundle, verifies fixes with verify_fix, and retains only passing fixes. It explicitly states no auto-merge and no secret touching, which covers major behavioral expectations.

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 a single paragraph with multiple sentences that convey key points efficiently. It front-loads the main purpose, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing constraints separately). Still, no unnecessary 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers input origin, process (verification step), constraints (secrets, auto-merge), and output purpose. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, the description adds meaning by specifying the expected source ('findings from scan_path --format json'), which clarifies format and origin beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 uses a specific verb ('remediate') and resource ('findings'), and clearly distinguishes its role: it produces a deterministic remediation request bundle for the host agent, not applying fixes directly. It contrasts with sibling tools like apply_verified_patch and verify_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?

Provides clear context: it calls no model, needs no key, and instructs to pass findings from scan_path. It also sets boundaries (never touch secrets, never auto-merge). However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like triage_findings or apply_verified_patch.

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