codegen_render_mapper

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that for the sb35-java21 category it returns empty files. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like idempotency, side effects, or context validation requirements.

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 each sentence serving a purpose: function, templates, exception. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 tool with one parameter, high schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, templates, and a special case. It lacks description of return format, but overall is fairly complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The main description does not add significant value beyond the schema's detailed parameter explanation, only confirming the context should come from codegen_build_context.

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 renders MyBatis XML mapper or MapStruct mapper, specifies applicable templates, and distinguishes from sibling render tools by mentioning mapper-specific templates and the sb35-java21 category exception.

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 by listing applicable templates and noting when it returns empty, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria beyond the sb35-java21 case.

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