generate_ps2_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never says that files are written to disk, whether existing content in outputDir is overwritten, or what the 'apply' boolean toggles (presumably a dry-run vs. write gate). The only clue that this mutates the filesystem is the word 'Generate'; re-runnability and safety of the operation are left entirely to inference.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition, and the key artifacts are listed efficiently. It is well-formed but too terse for the amount of unknown behavior it is supposed to cover.

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 file-generating mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a write-gating boolean, the description omits the essentials: where files land, whether output is deterministic, and whether an existing scaffold is clobbered. An agent could invoke it but could not predict the consequences of that invocation.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. projectName, outputDir, and especially the 'apply' flag (whose semantics are non-obvious and potentially destructive) receive no explanation of format, path conventions, or side effects in either the schema or the description.

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 gives a specific verb ('Generate') and a concrete resource ('minimal PS2 port scaffold'), then enumerates the artifacts produced: CMake, a C entrypoint, and a pending-layer checklist. That is far more informative than the bare name, but it never separates this tool from the near-identical sibling 'create_ps2_project', so an agent must guess which generator to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as create_ps2_project, port_project_plan, or port_start, all of which appear in the sibling list. Nothing says whether this is a first step, a re-runnable scaffold, or something to run only once per port.

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