Generate a synthetic CRUMB fixture

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

The description discloses the non-overwrite behavior, which is a meaningful safety trait beyond the annotations. It also clearly states that raw XML is only returned when includeXml=true, providing return-behavior transparency. Since annotations already cover read-only/destructive hints, this additional detail is valuable but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy, matching the conciseness of high-quality tool descriptions.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description focuses on the essential generation behavior: creating a known fixture, writing to a file, or returning XML. It fully explains the primary output modes and the no-overwrite guarantee. It could be more explicit about what happens if neither outputPath nor includeXml is provided, but the output schema likely covers return values.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It does explain the role of outputPath (file artifact) and includeXml (raw XML return), but it leaves name and kind to schema naming and enum values. This partial explanation is helpful but does not fully cover all parameters.

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 'Creates one known fixture without overwriting' clearly states the specific action (create), resource (fixture), and scope (one known kind). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crumb_inspect_design and crumb_validate_design, which read or validate rather than generate.

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 description provides clear context on how to use the tool: 'Provide outputPath for a file artifact; raw XML is returned only when includeXml=true.' This gives practical invocation guidance, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or list excluded use cases. The unique generation purpose is implied by the name, but not stated as a rule.

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