generate_mini_app_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates starter code but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., file structure, dependencies, whether it overwrites existing files, or if it's a one-time setup). For a code generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (generating code with multiple parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'starter code' includes, how MiniKit integration manifests, or what the output looks like (e.g., a zip file, directory structure). For a generative tool with no structured output, more 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 schema fully documents all three parameters (app_name, app_type, features) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how features interact or what 'MiniKit integration' implies for parameter choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate starter code for a Base mini app with MiniKit integration.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('starter code'), and context ('Base mini app with MiniKit integration'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'generate_mini_app_manifest' or 'generate_embed_metadata', which might also generate code-related artifacts.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'generate_mini_app_manifest' or 'validate_mini_app_requirements'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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