propose_patch

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

With no annotations, the description provides basic transparency by stating read-only and no file writing. It could disclose more about permissions or side effects.

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, efficient sentence (16 words) with no waste, front-loading the purpose and key behavior.

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?

While the description covers purpose and read-only nature, it lacks details about return format or output. The vague phrase 'context bounds' and absence of output schema reduce completeness.

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?

The single parameter 'task' has a clear schema description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema coverage of 100%, so baseline score applies.

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 proposes a patch plan for a task and is read-only. It distinguishes from siblings like review_patch and validate_patch by emphasizing read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like plan_change.

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 usage when proposing a patch without writing, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternatives among many siblings.

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