generate_indexer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it has side effects (e.g., creating files or deploying code), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured safety hints.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and any mention of output or side effects. For a tool that likely generates code with potential deployment implications, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide examples). This meets the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('generate subgraph code') and the target ('for indexing Arbitrum contracts with The Graph'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_backend or generate_frontend, which might also involve code generation for different components.

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 focused on code generation (e.g., generate_backend, generate_frontend, generate_bridge_code), there's no indication of the specific context or prerequisites for choosing this tool over others.

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