db_codegen_generate

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

Discloses that it writes files to disk in one go with no preview/edit cycle. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It could mention overwriting behavior or error handling, but the key behavioral traits are communicated.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides usage guidance and behavioral note. Highly efficient.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage alternatives, and a key behavioral side effect. Missing return value description, but overall adequate given the 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 100% with descriptions for all 10 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, e.g., 'using templates' and 'legacy/single-shot', which are contextual but not parameter-specific.

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?

Clearly states it generates Java code from database table analysis using templates. Distinct from sibling tools by explicitly labeling itself 'single-shot' and contrasting with the atomic workflow.

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?

Explicitly recommends preferring the atomic workflow (codegen_build_context + render_* tools) instead of this legacy single-shot tool. Also warns that it writes files to disk with no preview/edit cycle, guiding when not to use it.

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