generate_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool 'always uses Claude', which is a useful behavioral trait, but it says nothing about side effects, output format, error conditions, or required permissions. This is insufficient 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, concise sentence with no fluff. It clearly communicates the core context, though the phrase 'Always uses Claude' is placed first, which is a minor structural inefficiency but not a significant issue.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters with zero schema descriptions, the tool is relatively simple. However, the description fails to explain return values, usage caveats, or how it relates to the sibling 'implement_feature'. The provided context is minimal and leaves key gaps.

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 compensate. It makes no mention of the 'prompt' or 'session_id' parameters, leaving their meaning and usage entirely to the schema. The description adds no value for understanding the 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 states the tool is for 'complex code generation, logic-heavy tasks, or refactoring', giving a clear sense of what it does. While the verb 'uses Claude' is indirect, the resource and tasks are clear enough. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'implement_feature', but the scope is reasonably defined.

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 for when to use the tool: 'complex code generation, logic-heavy tasks, or refactoring'. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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