gen_compat_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write/scaffold operation but says nothing about what files or directories get created, whether existing files are overwritten, required permissions, or reversibility. The output schema covers return values, but side effects remain undisclosed.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and its purpose, with parameter encodings packed into a trailing parenthetical. Dense but no wasted words.

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 output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and the two required params are self-describing by name. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the absence of any side-effect or prerequisite detail leaves a meaningful gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It helpfully documents the encoding of two params (quirks semicolon-separated, for_apps comma-separated), but module and workspace are left to inference from their names. Partial compensation for a 4-param tool.

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 gives a specific verb ('Scaffold') and resource ('compat shim for one module') plus the payload it records (per-quirk workarounds for specific apps). It is clear on its own, but does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like scaffold_component, gen_api_stub, or compat_report.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The phrase 'unblock specific apps' hints at the motivating scenario, but an agent must infer whether this precedes or follows compat_report, scaffold_component, or test_app_in_vm.

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