fix_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses verbosity levels but does not mention whether the tool modifies the file, requires permissions, or has side effects. The behavioral impact of scanning and returning fixes is unclear.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the verbosity parameter. No redundant information.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately explains the return format based on verbosity. However, it lacks details about what scanning involves, what 'fixes' means, and whether there are output limitations or prerequisites.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the three verbosity levels beyond the enum, but the file_path parameter adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 scans a file and returns fixes, using a specific verb+resource. While it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_security' by focusing on fixes, it could be more precise about the nature of fixes.

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 only provides guidance on the verbosity parameter (minimal, compact, full) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_security' or other fix tools. No exclusions or contexts are given.

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