generate_code

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 only states the purpose ('Generate ... from a table's schema') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For a tool that likely reads schema metadata, this is a significant omission.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the verb, resource, and outputs without any redundant filler. This is an example of concise, efficient writing.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format (e.g., string code), any prerequisites (e.g., existing table), or how the inputs relate. An agent would need to guess at the interaction between table and schema parameters or the nature of the output.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only refers generically to 'table's schema' without elaborating on how server, database, or schema parameters interplay. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the weight.

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 clearly states a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'from a table's schema', and explicitly lists the three output types (TypeScript interface, C# class, CREATE TABLE script). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_insert_scripts, generate_er_diagram, and generate_test_data, which produce different artifacts.

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 implies when to use the tool (when code artifacts are needed from a schema) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Unlike the calibration example that names a sibling and its condition, this description relies on the agent to infer selection without exclusion guidance.

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