repair_propose

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

The description lacks behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. 'Propose' suggests non-destructive intent, but nothing is explicit. No annotations are provided to mitigate this gap.

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 and front-loaded, but it is too terse to be effective. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing parameter explanations that are essential for proper usage.

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?

Despite having an output schema and nested objects, the description provides no information about return values, errors, or how inputs relate to the tool's operation. This is highly incomplete for the complexity level.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (contract, iteration, violations). 'Bounded changes' and 'declared free parameters' are too vague to clarify the meaning of these inputs.

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 bounded changes to declared free parameters, which is a specific action on a defined resource. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like repair_apply by the action 'propose'. However, it assumes domain knowledge about 'declared free parameters' without explanation, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as repair_apply or design_contract_draft. The word 'only' hints at a restriction but does not clarify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. No alternatives are mentioned.

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