generate_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: returns structured, saveable file content and never writes to disk itself. This is critical and well-stated, though it doesn't detail the output structure or other potential 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a concise behavioral note. No redundancy or unrelated details.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose and non-write behavior. However, it doesn't clarify how parameters relate, what the structured output looks like, or whether the optional parameters override or supplement the required 'spec'.

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 descriptions cover all 14 parameters (100%), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The example listing component types is illustrative but not a semantic addition to parameter ownership or format.

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?

Clearly states the action (generate), the resource (several related files), and provides a concrete example (interface + implementation + DTOs + validators + mapper + controller). This distinguishes it from single-file generation tools in the sibling list, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 example implies use when a full module or multiple related files are needed, but there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools like generate_code or generate_project, nor any statement of when not to use this tool.

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