generate_starter_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate' code, but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns code directly, or if it requires any specific permissions or network access. It lacks details on side effects or output behavior, leaving the agent to assume the tool's behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention what the tool returns, how the parameters influence the output, or any prerequisites. It is not complete enough for an agent to know precisely what to expect or how to invoke it 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?

The description does not mention the parameters 'task' or 'language' at all. The schema provides a description for 'task' but only enum values for 'language' with no explanation of their meaning. With schema coverage at 50%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the language parameter semantics vague.

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 action ('Generate professional production-ready code') and resource ('using official Wawp SDKs'), and explicitly frames it as the preferred integration method. It is unambiguous and easily distinguishes from sibling tools like send_local_file or list_endpoints.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: 'This is the preferred way to integrate Wawp.' It implies using this tool for Wawp integration, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not conditions. Still, it provides sufficient directional guidance.

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