local_boilerplate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it discloses that only code is returned without explanations or markdown fences, and uses a local model, but omits details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 brief with a clear one-line summary, a behavioral note, and a list of args, all without unnecessary words; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 two simple parameters and an output schema (not shown but flagged as present), the description covers the core purpose, return format, and parameter semantics adequately for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so description compensates with short descriptions for both parameters: 'spec' is described as 'Descripción de lo que debe generar el código' and 'language' includes examples like 'python' or 'typescript', adding meaningful context beyond 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 generates boilerplate code from a specification using a local model, distinguishing it from sibling tools like local_explain_code or local_summarize by its specific focus on code generation without explanations.

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 implies usage for generating code from a spec but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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