local_boilerplate

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the return format: 'Devuelve solo el código, sin explicaciones ni fences markdown.' It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint is consistent with code generation that doesn't modify external state).

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 concise with two short paragraphs, no filler, and a clear docstring-style parameter section. It could be slightly more compact, but it earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 required params) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the return format and the tool's core function. It omits potential details like model behavior or size limits, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 0%, so the description fully bears the burden. It explains 'spec' as 'Descripción de lo que debe generar el código' and 'language' as 'Lenguaje de programación', providing necessary semantics beyond the bare 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 verb 'Genera' and the resource 'código boilerplate a partir de una especificación', with the added context of using a local model. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like local_summarize or local_classify, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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