self_heal

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

The annotation already marks the tool as destructive, and the description's 'reinstall-first strategy' adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by revealing the approach. However, it does not disclose specifics such as what gets reinstalled, whether existing data is preserved, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and strategy without waste. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one optional parameter.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, destructiveHint annotation, and output schema present), the description provides sufficient context for the tool's core purpose. It does not explain the repair process in depth, but for this simplicity level, the essential information is present.

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 input schema documents the single optional parameter 'project_path' with a clear description, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to since the schema already handles it.

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 states a specific action ('Repair an environment') and adds the 'reinstall-first strategy' detail, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'repair_environment', which appears to have a similar purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'diagnose_environment' or 'repair_environment'. The strategy hint ('reinstall-first') implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons.

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