get_generator_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the tool returns a full option schema including choices and defaults, which implies a read-only operation. It also explains the intent (validation before generation), adding useful context beyond a simple 'get' statement.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Return', and contains no redundant words. The second sentence adds crucial usage context without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return content (JSON with every option, choices, defaults), the input (generator), and the usage context (read before generate_project). It is complete within its scope.

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?

The sole parameter 'generator' is fully documented in the schema as 'Generator id from list_generators', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds minimal new information about the parameter itself, only pointing to generate_project context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly specifies the resource: 'a generator's full option schema'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_generators by focusing on detailed schema retrieval and mentions the output format (JSON) with relevant details (options, choices, defaults).

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?

It explicitly advises reading this before passing a config to generate_project, providing strong when-to-use context. Though it doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, the prerequisite relationship is clear and actionable.

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