deepseek_fix

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important context: the tool operates in an isolated Git worktree and never modifies the main workspace automatically. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the safety profile. It also mentions the return format (compact structured JSON), which is useful. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a key safety guarantee and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It explains the isolation mechanism, the safety guarantee, and the return format. It could mention what happens on failure or how the worktree is cleaned up, but the annotations and schema cover the basics. A 4 is appropriate.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention the 'evidence' parameter implicitly by saying 'failing-test loop' and 'symptoms already observed'. Since the schema covers everything, a baseline of 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 the tool's purpose: delegating a bug-fix or failing-test loop to DeepSeek Harness in an isolated Git worktree. It specifies the action (delegate), the resource (bug-fix/failing-test loop), and the isolation mechanism (worktree), which distinguishes it from siblings like deepseek_task or deepseek_explore.

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 implies when to use this tool: when there is a bug-fix or failing-test loop to delegate. It also notes that the main workspace is never modified automatically, which is a key usage consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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