check_fix_completeness

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool checks, not whether it is read-only, what it returns (e.g., boolean or report), whether it requires prior scanning, or how it handles missing candidates. This leaves significant uncertainty for an agent invoking the tool.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Check if a fix has been applied') and efficiently conveys the scope ('ALL vulnerable call sites') and the cross-referencing aspect. No filler or 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected outputs, preconditions, and behavior with optional parameters. It does not mention what the tool returns, how 'known candidates' are obtained, or what happens if candidates are omitted. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full contract.

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%, so all four parameters are documented. The description adds the notion of 'known candidates' which aligns with the 'candidates' parameter but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Check if a fix has been applied') and the resource ('at ALL vulnerable call sites in a file'), and adds the cross-referencing with candidates. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_fix or verify_finding by focusing on completeness across call sites, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is used after a fix is applied (to check completeness), but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or why it would be preferred over verify_finding or scan_file. The context of use is left to inference.

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