generate_boilerplate

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 that config files are generated, but it does not disclose whether files are written directly to disk, returned as content, or delivered as an archive, nor whether existing files would be overwritten. The reference to 'recommended tech stack' is also ambiguous as a prerequisite or prior-context dependency. This is a significant transparency gap for a generation 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb comes first, the resource is explicit, and the parenthetical list is useful without being verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what an agent should expect as a result and any side effects. It doesn't describe the return format, whether files are created in the workspace, or the prerequisite relationship to 'recommended tech stack'. For a 5-parameter generation tool, this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 value by tying the generated artifacts (docker-compose, Dockerfile, CI/CD) to the include_docker and include_ci/cd parameters, and by listing .env and .gitignore as expected outputs. It does not elaborate on project_name, project_type, or scale beyond the schema, but the schema already describes those.

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 'Generate', identifies the resource as 'config files', lists concrete examples (.env, docker-compose, Dockerfile, CI/CD, .gitignore), and ties it to 'recommended tech stack'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recommend_stack or plan_devops.

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 phrase 'based on the recommended tech stack' implies this tool should be used after a stack recommendation, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor when it should not be used, and 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.