create_project_license

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

With no annotations, the description falls short in disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool overwrites existing files, requires specific project structure, or validates inputs. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it is front-loaded. However, it sacrifices essential context for brevity, making it less effective. A slightly longer description with more detail would improve it.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, an enum with conditional requirements, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the custom_text dependency, return behavior, or effects on the project. Additional context is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter relationships or usage tips. This is acceptable but not helpful.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('LICENSE file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_project_readme'. However, it lacks explicit mention of the project path location, which is a slight ambiguity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for choosing license types. The lack of any 'when to use' statement is a significant gap.

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