tsm_codegen_small_patch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions the use of a 'budget model' and scoping to single functions, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, error handling, or behavior when input exceeds scope. Adequate but lacking depth.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences total. First sentence states main purpose, second sets clear exclusions. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters with brief descriptions, the tool description covers purpose and scope minimally. It lacks details on return format, error states, or behavior for edge cases. Adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema: it provides context about scope (single functions) but does not enhance individual parameter meanings. The schema descriptions are basic, and the tool description does not enrich them.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates small code snippets or function-level patches using a budget model. It specifies scope (single functions, regex, SQL, scripts, unit tests) and explicitly excludes multi-file or architectural designs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tsm_rewrite or tsm_summarize.

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?

Description explicitly says NOT for multi-file or architectural designs, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not directly name alternative tools for such cases, though the sibling list is available. Implicitly suggests use for small, focused code generation tasks.

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