get_generated_code

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

The description discloses the return envelope structure (items, totalCount, truncated, limit) and sorting behavior (by project then file path). Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It implies read-only access via 'inspect', but does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects, which could be improved.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with key response details. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 no output schema and 3 simple parameters, the description partially compensates by explaining the envelope fields (totalCount, truncated, limit) and sort order. However, it omits the structure of the 'items' themselves (e.g., whether they include code snippets, file paths, sizes), which is crucial for an agent to handle responses correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters documented). The description adds the default limit of 200 and restates sorting behavior already present in the schema. This provides marginal extra value, meeting the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.

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 verb ('inspect') and resource ('generated source code from source generators'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_source_generators' by focusing on the generated code rather than the generators themselves. However, it does not explicitly clarify whether the returned 'items' contain the full source code or just metadata, leaving some 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., 'peek_il', 'get_source_generators', or 'get_method_source'). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, making it harder for an agent to select the appropriate tool among many siblings.

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