eol_fix_verified

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions conversion and verification but does not explain that the tool modifies the file (destructive action), how inference from svn:eol-style works, what happens on failure, or the implications of the 'ignored-EOL diff' verification step. This leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details about parameters and behavior. It is not inefficiently verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity, earning a middle score.

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 complexity (involves SVN, EOL conversion, verification), no output schema, and minimal annotation support, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, error handling, verification semantics, or constraints like file size (allowLarge), making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 only 17% (only 'cwd' described). The tool description adds no parameter-level details; it does not mention path, dryRun, target, removeBom, or allowLarge. For a tool with 6 parameters and low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific action: convert a file's EOL style using unix2dos/dos2unix, inferred from svn:eol-style, then verify the diff. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like eol_check (check only) and svn_propset_eol_style (set property, not convert file).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., svn:eol-style must be set), when verification is needed, or when other tools like eol_check or svn_propset_eol_style are more appropriate.

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