generate_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does, but fails to reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. For a template generation tool, one might assume it is safe, but the description does not confirm this.

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 of 12 words, extremely concise and structured to present the core function immediately. There is no extraneous information, and the sentence is front-loaded with the verb 'Generates' followed by the resource type. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 that there is an output schema (though not provided), the description does not need to detail return values. However, the tool has two required parameters with no descriptions either in the schema or the description, and the description does not clarify what the generated template looks like. For example, does it include function signatures, imports, or comments? The description also does not relate the tool to the sibling tools (e.g., that it should be used before 'run_code'). It is minimally complete but leaves the user with unanswered questions.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not add any semantic meaning to the parameters beyond mentioning them implicitly. It does not explain what constitutes a valid 'problem_slug' (e.g., format like 'two-sum') or 'code_lang' (e.g., 'python', 'java'). There are no examples or constraints, leaving the agent to guess the expected values.

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 'generates a language-specific code template for a given LeetCode problem slug.' The verb 'generates' and the specific resource 'code template' combined with the inputs 'problem_slug' and 'code_lang' make the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'run_code' or 'submit_code' which are execution actions, and 'fetch_problem_plain_text' which retrieves plain text, not a template.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. For example, it could have indicated that this is the first step before writing and submitting code, but it does not. With siblings that perform different tasks, the lack of usage direction is a notable gap.

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