get_fix_commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical non-execution behavior upfront ('WITHOUT executing them') and clarifies that the output is a list of commands, implying no side effects. It could add more context (e.g., whether network access or dependency installation is needed), but the key safety-relevant trait is well covered.

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 two sentences with no filler. The key differentiator ('WITHOUT executing them') is front-loaded, followed by the usage context and the return-summary grouping. Every clause earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns (grouped commands), when to use it (before apply_fixes), and the critical no-execution guarantee. It could mention edge cases like empty results or required project discovery details, but for a preview/list tool this is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description need not restate them. The schema already explains path, packages (optional filter), and severity_filter (default all). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('safe upgrade commands for vulnerable packages'), then immediately distinguishes the tool from its likely sibling apply_fixes by stating 'WITHOUT executing them'. It also names the grouped-by-ecosystem output, so an agent can clearly identify the tool's role in the workflow.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use this to show the user what will be changed before calling apply_fixes'), naming the alternative and the sequencing. It does not address scan_project or open_dashboard, but the main decision point between preview and execution is clearly covered.

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