plan_fixes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: passing url causes an audit-then-plan flow, and the output is a prioritized list with rationale, remediation, and acceptance criteria. 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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then usage modes, then return value. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple schema, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers the main operational aspects: both usage modes and the shape of the returned plan. The main gap is the undocumented top parameter and the lack of explicit guidance on what happens if both fail_ids and url are provided or neither is provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains fail_ids with a concrete format example and url with its audit behavior, but it does not explain the top parameter at all, leaving its meaning and effect on output unclear.

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 opens with a specific verb-object statement—'按缺口生成优先修复计划'—clearly identifying the tool as generating a prioritized fix plan. It also distinguishes its two invocation modes (fail_ids vs. url), which helps an agent tell it apart from auditing, probing, and scoring sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and explicitly explains two usage routes: pass fail_ids directly, or pass url which triggers an audit first. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage conditions are clear enough for an agent to select it.

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