generate_backend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool generates but doesn't describe how it works: whether it creates files, returns code snippets, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a code generation tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Generate TypeScript backend code' (action), 'for Arbitrum dApps' (context), 'Supports NestJS and Express' (framework options), 'with viem integration' (key technology). No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a code generation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually produces (files? code blocks? project structure?), doesn't mention any constraints or requirements, and provides minimal context about how the generation works. The description alone doesn't give enough information for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema - it mentions 'Supports NestJS and Express with viem integration' which relates to the framework parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning for other parameters like contract_abi or template. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none in the schema.

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 TypeScript backend code for Arbitrum dApps' with specific frameworks mentioned (NestJS and Express) and viem integration. It distinguishes from some siblings like generate_frontend or generate_tests, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other backend-related tools like generate_messaging_code or generate_indexer.

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. With many sibling tools available (like generate_bridge_code, generate_messaging_code, generate_oracle, etc.), there's no indication of when backend code generation is appropriate versus specialized code generation tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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