generate_egovframe_crud

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important safety behavior (pre-checks file conflicts and writes nothing if any exist), which adds valuable context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention permissions, return format, or directory side effects, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states exactly what is generated, the second covers profiles and conflict safety. No filler, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complex 21-parameter generator with no output schema, the description gives a strong high-level overview, including the generated artifact types and safety behavior. It does not explain the return value or plan output for dryRun, which is a minor gap given the tool's richness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 21 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The few high-level mentions (profiles, optional JSP/tests) map to schema fields without adding new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool generates a VO/Mapper/Service/Controller/JSP/JUnit skeleton per eGovFrame's official CRUD wizard, and mentions profile support and conflict-checking behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_egovframe_ci or create_egovframe_project.

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 context is clear: use this when an eGovFrame CRUD scaffold is needed, with profiles and optional JSP/tests indicated. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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