generate_module_skeleton

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it states that the tool reads the source file, extracts symbols, writes to the target module path, and returns an error with an unknownSymbols list on failure. It does not mention dry-run behavior or overwrite semantics, but those are documented in the schema.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains the operational flow, and the third covers a key error behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the schema is thorough and the description explains the workflow and error behavior. The main gaps are the lack of a success return description and no explicit mention of dryRun/overwrite implications, though those defaults are present in the schema.

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 reinforces how the core parameters relate—sourceFile, symbols, and modulePath—but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a new module file with correct imports, declarations and visibility.' It clearly distinguishes this from generic extraction or editing tools by describing the module-skeleton generation workflow. The subsequent sentences add concrete scope: reading a source file, extracting specified symbols, and writing to a target path.

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 for when this tool is appropriate: when a new module file needs to be generated from symbols in an existing source file. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer split_file_by_declarations or extract_code_block instead.

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