generate_boilerplate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious behaviors: automatic Thai project detection and the instruction not to translate generated Thai strings. It does not describe the output format, but this is a low-risk generation tool.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and the critical behavioral constraint without any filler. The key action is front-loaded, and the DO NOT TRANSLATE warning is placed second for emphasis.

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 simple two-parameter generation tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It captures the main behavior and the Thai-specific caveat; only a brief note about what the generated snippet contains or returns is missing.

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%, and both parameters have meaningful descriptions and an enum. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate SAMP code snippets.' The input schema further clarifies the snippet types, but the description does not differentiate this tool from the sibling get_snippet, so it stops short of a 5.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_snippet or transform_pawn_script. The description implies it is for generating new SAMP code, but it provides no when-to-use/when-not-to-use context or named alternatives.

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