Scaffold ActiveMQ BI project

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

Despite light annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: it writes files to disk, lists every artifact generated, calls out conditional generation based on include_listener and transacted, and explains the conflict-resolution rule where transacted overrides ack_mode (with a warning). This goes well beyond the annotations and schema.

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 long but packed with necessary detail about the many files and flags. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids filler. The lengthy file list is justified for a scaffolding tool, though it could be slightly tightened by moving implementation specifics into the schema.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and a dozen generated artifacts, the description covers the key generation rules, conditional files, and conflict handling. It explains what gets written, when, and how parameter interactions are resolved, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by linking specific parameters to generated files ('listener.bal ... when include_listener is set', 'transactions.bal when transacted is set') and clarifying the precedence relationship between transacted and ack_mode, which is not captured in 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 opens with 'MAIN tool' and states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a complete, runnable WSO2 Integrator (BI) Ballerina project that integrates with ActiveMQ via the ballerinax/activemq connector.' It then enumerates the exact set of files created, making the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that validate, add queues, or build/deploy.

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 'MAIN tool' marker and the comprehensive scaffold list establish that this tool is the entry point for creating a project. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., 'for incremental changes use mq_add_queue'), so it lacks the explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.

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