atelierb_generate_c

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that output goes to the lang/c directory, but does not state whether existing files are overwritten, what preconditions apply (e.g., component existence), or other side effects of generating files.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and output location, and contains no filler or redundant 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?

The description and schema together explain the core purpose, parameters, and output directory, making basic usage understandable. However, it lacks guidance on preconditions, error behavior, and how this relates to project-level generation, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 schema fully describes all three parameters, including the profile enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that component_name refers to an implementation or basic machine but provides no additional syntactic or formatting detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with the specific action 'Generate C code' for a 'single B component' and names the output directory. It clearly distinguishes this single-component generation tool from the sibling generate_project_c.

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?

It provides clear context: use for a single component (implementation or basic machine) and not for a whole project. However, it does not explicitly mention the project-level alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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