generate_module_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the read-extract-write flow and the specific failure mode (returns an error with an unknownSymbols list when symbols aren't found), which an agent needs to handle partial failures.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by mechanism and error behavior; no filler. Slightly more could be trimmed, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 destructive mutation tool with full param coverage, no output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description covers the action, the data flow, and the error case. It stops short of clarifying dryRun default behavior or overwrite interaction, which would round it out.

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 all seven parameters (cwd, dryRun, symbols, language, overwrite, modulePath, sourceFile) are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely maps to 'symbols' via 'extracts the specified symbols' and adds no format or default semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Generate a new module file") plus the exact mechanism (reads source, extracts symbols, writes to target path). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from siblings like split_file_by_declarations, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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 explains what happens mechanically but gives no when-to-use guidance: no indication of when this is preferable to extract_code_block or split_file_by_declarations, and no mention of prerequisites such as the target needing to exist or symbols needing to resolve. Usage is only implied.

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