statelydb-schema-generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but delivers little: it does not say what is produced (files on disk, returned content, a URL), whether it is side-effect free, or whether authentication is required. Only the 'published' qualifier implies any constraint.

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?

Two tight sentences, action front-loaded, no filler. The supported-languages clause is the only useful supplementary detail and is placed last where it belongs.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the return shape matters a lot and is entirely unaddressed, leaving the agent unsure what it gets back. Parameters and source requirements are adequately covered, so it is minimally viable rather than deficient.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's language list broadly mirrors the enum but adds no format, lookup, or value guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 states a specific verb (generate) and resource (client code from a published schema version definition), which clearly separates it from validate-schema and schema-put siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as statelydb-schema-put or the validate tools. The phrase 'published schema version' hints at a prerequisite but is never stated as one.

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