generate_passing_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the template is merely returned or written to disk, whether generation is deterministic, or what 'passing' is validated against. The 'Returns: {template}' line hints at a return value but adds little behavioral context.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first and args/returns clearly separated. The Args/Returns skeleton is slightly verbose for two parameters but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter template generator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core but leaves gaps: no statement of what 'passing' means, no indication of side effects, and no usage context relative to the audit siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'org: GitHub org slug' and 'slug: Package slug (must end in -mcp by convention)' both add real meaning. The convention constraint on slug is especially valuable, though the placeholder defaults ('your-org') are left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate ... server.json template') with the qualifier 'minimal-but-passing', which is meaningful. It is distinguishable from siblings like audit_server_json and check_required_fields, though it never names an alternative.

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 on when to reach for this generator versus the audit/check siblings, and no prerequisites or sequencing (e.g., generate then audit) are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose line.

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