codna_fix

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses network dependence, GitHub write behavior conditional on open_pr, the return payload (root cause, confidence, model, pull_request_url), and the failure contract ('codna_fix error: ...' text, tool never raises). This is substantially more behavioral context than the annotations alone provide, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 dense but well structured: purpose first, then prerequisites/offline truth, then return values and failure behavior. Every sentence carries operational weight, and the most important constraints (network, writes, failure mode) are front-loaded.

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 complex tool with auth requirements, network calls, conditional GitHub writes, offline sibling alternatives, an output schema, and special failure behavior, the description covers all key non-schema context. The output schema handles return details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and each parameter already has detailed descriptions covering defaults, required conditions, and side effects. The description adds general context like auth and output shape but not new per-parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Find and fix a bug') and immediately clarifies the full scope: running the Codna agent, engine, and risk simulation. It also distinguishes itself from fully-offline siblings by naming codna_triage, codna_secure, and codna_recall as offline alternatives, so an agent can separate fix behavior from triage/recall/secure.

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 explicit usage context: it requires codna login and a provider key, explains that planning needs network access, and states that only open_pr=true writes to GitHub. It also points to the fully-offline sibling tools as alternatives when offline behavior is required, which is clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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