generate_quick_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool produces install commands, basic usage, and framework-specific examples, but does not disclose potential side effects, limitations, or return format beyond these broad outputs. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence serves a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There is no wasted wording, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

The tool has three parameters, one with an enum, and no output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool returns at a high level ('install commands, basic usage, and framework-specific examples'), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not dive into output formatting, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, providing full descriptions for packageName, framework, and version. The description's mention of 'framework-specific examples' loosely aligns with the framework parameter, but it adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already documents, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: 'Generate ready-to-use code examples and installation instructions.' It uses a specific verb (Generate) and resource (code examples/installation instructions), and differentiates from siblings by targeting 'how do I use X?' queries, which is distinct from searching, comparing, or analyzing packages.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Use this when users ask...') with concrete examples. It provides clear context for common user intents but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would warrant a 5.

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