generate_php_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'following coding standards' which hints at quality constraints, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this creates actual files or just returns code, what happens if inputs are invalid, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. For a code generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key constraint about coding standards. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 code generation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (raw code, formatted output, file creation?), doesn't cover error conditions or validation rules, and provides minimal behavioral context. The 'coding standards' hint is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they relate to PHP function generation. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'WordPress PHP function', specifying it follows 'coding standards'. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'generate_hook' or 'generate_shortcode' by focusing on PHP functions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all code-generation siblings like 'generate_gutenberg_block'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for generating various WordPress code elements (blocks, hooks, endpoints, etc.), the description lacks any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools like 'generate_hook' or 'generate_rest_endpoint'.

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