suggest_fix

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description correctly aligns by stating 'dry-run,' which implies no changes are applied. However, it does not mention any additional behavioral aspects like rate limits, required authentication, or the shape of the response. It adds a small amount of context about being a dry-run but stays within the safety profile the annotations already establish.

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?

A single, focused sentence that states the core functionality without any filler. The key concept (dry-run fix recipe) is front-loaded, and there is zero waste.

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 tool's relative simplicity (two parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of safety annotations, the description covers the basic operation. However, without an output schema, the agent does not know what a 'fix recipe' or 'regression-test suggestions' looks like, and the framework parameter's effect is unaddressed. This makes the description incomplete for a correct invocation.

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 schema has no descriptions for rule_id or framework, and the description only refers to 'a rule,' which indirectly hints at rule_id but does not explain what a rule is or how framework modifies the output. With 0% schema coverage and no parameter explanation, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess at the meaning and semantics of both parameters.

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?

States a clear action (return) and a specific object of that action: a dry-run fix recipe and regression-test suggestions for a rule. It distinguishes itself from siblings like explain_rule by focusing on fixes rather than explanations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many siblings, such as explain_rule or scan tools. The only implicit usage is that it applies to a rule, but there is no information about prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it.

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