assess_fix_safety

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns and strongly implies through 'Evaluate' and 'Use before applying' that it is an analysis-only operation. However, it never explicitly states that the patch is not applied or that no code is modified, leaving a meaningful behavioral trait implicit rather than stated.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: it front-loads the core purpose, then the output, then the usage condition. Every sentence contributes new information and there is no filler.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with five parameters, nested objects, no annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, yet the description does not mention the required source_files parameter or when to provide optional diagnosis/test_output/language. It only vaguely characterizes the return value, leaving too much for an agent to infer.

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 only 20%, so the description needs to compensate. 'Proposed patch' maps to the patch parameter, but there is no explanation of the required source_files array or the optional language, diagnosis, and test_output inputs. An agent gets little parameter-level guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Evaluate'), a clear resource ('proposed patch'), and the exact question it answers ('likely to introduce regressions'). The mention of risk level, side effects, and recommendation makes the tool's role unmistakable and clearly different from the sibling tools diagnose_test_failure and propose_minimal_fix, even without naming them.

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?

'Use before applying any non-trivial fix' gives a clear temporal trigger and workflow context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with the sibling tools, so it is clear guidance but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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