find_and_fix

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While 'suggest/apply' hints at mutability, it fails to explain the safety model (dry-run vs destructive), what the 'analyze' phase evaluates, or how confidence scoring interacts with fix application. Critical gaps for a tool that can automatically modify multiple files.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the three-phase workflow using arrow notation. Appropriately front-loaded with active verbs. Only minor deduction for being slightly too terse given the lack of annotations and high-stakes nature of the tool.

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?

Grossly insufficient for a 6-parameter mutation tool with manual/auto application modes. Description omits: the dry-run behavior (apply=false), confidence level semantics, output format, and file modification scope. No output schema exists to compensate for these omissions.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds workflow context ('repeated patterns', 'suggest/apply') that aligns with the 'pattern' and 'apply' parameters, but does not elaborate on 'intent' formatting, 'minConfidence' thresholds, or 'maxFiles' limits beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a clear workflow (search→analyze→suggest/apply) and target resource (repeated patterns across files). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'refactor_helper', 'find_duplicates', or 'search', which also process code patterns across files.

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 no guidance on when to select this tool versus the 30+ sibling alternatives (e.g., when to use this instead of 'refactor_helper' or 'suggest_edit'). No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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