generate_spider_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'generate' but does not explain what output is produced, whether files are written, if there are side effects, or any other behavioral details. This is a significant gap for a code-generation tool.

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 11 words, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient, though perhaps too terse for such a complex tool. It earns its place but could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of the input schema (large nested object, 3 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely underspecified. It does not explain what a 'production starter spider' means, what the output format is, or how this relates to running a crawl blueprint. The description is inadequate for an agent to use this tool correctly without further context.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the top-level parameters 'variant' or 'class_name.' It only references 'the crawl blueprint,' which maps to the 'blueprint' parameter, but even that is not elaborated. Nested blueprint properties are well described in the schema, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the name.

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 clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('a production starter spider that mirrors the crawl blueprint'). It indicates code generation from a blueprint, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_crawl_blueprint or validate_spider_code, though the word 'starter spider' hints at template creation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_crawl_blueprint or validate_spider_code. The description only implies usage through the phrase 'mirrors the crawl blueprint,' but it lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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