compose_fullstack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the critical default behavior: 'By default PREVIEWS; pass write: true to scaffold under <directory>/<name>.' It also mentions language neutrality and the output contract. It does not detail side effects like error handling, but this is adequate for a generator tool.

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 three sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then adding practical details (preview default, destination). Every sentence contributes useful 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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a comprehensive overview: composition purpose, generator-agnosticism, output structure, and write behavior. It could explain the preview output format more, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying the roles of frontend/backend types (static frontend, HTTP service backend), and by explaining the write/directory/name relationship and default subdirectories (apps/web, apps/server). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb 'Compose' with clear resources: a static frontend and an HTTP service backend, and specifies the output structure (apps/web + apps/server) along with a deployment contract and docker-compose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_project which likely handles single projects.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when composing two projects from any generators into a fullstack repo. It also explains the preview vs write mode. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it does not reach a 5.

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