Get SonarQube fix plan

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states what the tool returns. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with 15 parameters.

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?

One sentence conveys the core action and scope, but it is dense and could be split for readability. Still efficient overall.

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?

Without an output schema, the description gives only a high-level shape (grouped by file, optional source context). It lacks details on response structure and parameter explanations, leaving many gaps for a tool with 15 parameters.

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 0% description coverage and 15 parameters, but the description does not explain any parameter meaning or behavior. Parameters like impactSeverities, impactSoftwareQualities, and contextLines remain ambiguous without schema descriptions.

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 it returns unresolved SonarQure issues grouped by file with optional source context for two scopes (new-code or overall-code). This differentiates it from siblings like search_sonar_issues or get_sonar_issue_context.

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 implies usage when a fix plan aggregated by file is needed, but does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives. It is clear enough given sibling tool names.

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