perch_fetch_generator

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context: only public generators are fetchable, and the result is written to local files across two artifacts. However, it omits file overwrite semantics, whether credentials/permissions are needed, and any failure behavior when the generator doesn't exist.

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, zero filler: the action and payload are front-loaded, and the alias relationship follows. Everything stated 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-and-write-to-disk tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, target content, and destination. The remaining gap is the alias relationship: it never explains why an agent would choose this over perch_pull, which is material when both are exposed.

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 already documents both 'name' and 'path'. The description adds only that content lands in local files, loosely mapping to 'path', but gives no naming/format convention for the path hint or what 'name' accepts. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (a public generator's source), and even enumerates the payload pieces (modelText + outputTemplate) plus the destination (local files). It distinguishes itself from generic siblings, but the 'Alias of perch_pull' note leaves the question of how this differs from perch_pull (scope, target, precedence) unresolved.

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?

Naming perch_pull as an alias implies the two are interchangeable, which is usable guidance by inference, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or selection criterion between the two supposedly identical tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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