error_fix_suggestion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool does not automatically modify code, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other aspects like idempotency, side effects, or permission requirements, leaving gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints. No superfluous words. The semicolon separates the action from a key behavioral note, making it 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 no output schema, the description explains that the tool returns up to 3 minimal fix suggestions, but does not specify the format or structure of the output. It also lacks context on how it relates to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for an AI 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 50% (2 of 4 params have descriptions). The description mentions using errorSummary and contextFiles, and implies a default of 3 suggestions, adding minimal value beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'file' parameter.

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's purpose: based on errorSummary and contextFiles, return up to 3 minimal fix suggestions without automatically modifying code. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('fix suggestions'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like error_analyze by being suggestion-focused.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or prerequisite conditions. It implies usage when errorSummary and contextFiles are available, but lacks guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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