swiftlint_fix

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Auto-fix' implies file modification, but the description omits whether files are changed in-place, if backups are created, or what permissions are needed. No side effects or error conditions are mentioned.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It could benefit from additional context without sacrificing brevity, but as it stands, it is efficient.

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 mutation nature, 0 required parameters, and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse. It should clarify what happens on success/failure, default path behavior, and whether fixes are applied non-interactively. The current description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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% (both path and config have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond restating 'specified path'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 verb 'auto-fix', the resource 'SwiftLint violations', and the scope 'specified path'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swiftlint_run (lint without fix) and swift_format_run (different linter).

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 provides no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives like swiftlint_run, or when not to use it (e.g., on generated files). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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