write_generic_file

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

The description discloses that the tool fails on forbidden files and checks the working directory, and it describes the return format. However, it lacks details on overwrite behavior, permissions, or side effects. Given no annotations, the description covers some behavioral aspects but has gaps.

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 concise (about 80 words) and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence, usage notes, parameter list, and return description. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, exceptions, failure case, and return format. However, it omits details on existing file behavior and required permissions. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is fairly complete but has minor 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description's 'Args' section merely repeats parameter names and types without adding constraints, examples, or format details. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, as it only mirrors the schema titles.

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 writes a generic file to the module directory, with explicit exceptions for .tf files, facets.yaml, or README.md. It also specifies that it can be used for supporting files like Python or Bash scripts, distinguishing it from sibling write tools.

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 when to use the tool (for supporting files) and what files are forbidden (e.g., .tf, facets.yaml, README.md), implying that other tools should be used for those. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like write_resource_file or write_readme_file.

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