fix_all_issues

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it returns patches for review without auto-applying, confirming no destructive write. It clarifies the read-like behavior despite readOnlyHint=false, providing necessary context.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, maximum clarity. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior (non-applying), and return format (unified diffs). Lacks mention of potential failure modes or prerequisites (e.g., git repository status), but sufficient for most uses.

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 already describes the single parameter (projectPath) with clear documentation. Description adds no additional parameter details. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it generates code patches for all open issues in the ledger. The verb 'generate' and resource 'code patches' combined with 'all open issues' make the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'fix_issue' by implying batch processing.

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 explicitly says it does NOT auto-apply, clarifying when to use (for review-first workflow). It does not mention alternatives like 'fix_issue' but provides clear context on output expectations.

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