akai_gen

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a generator, but does not specify side effects, persistence, authentication requirements, or idempotency. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 very concise: a single sentence plus a category label. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it sacrifices behavioral and usage details for brevity, making it somewhat under-specified.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate by explaining output format, side effects, and parameter interaction. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for a tool that generates data.

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 100%, so parameters 'args' and 'stdin' are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds context that it generates recipe YAML from natural language, which helps interpret the parameters but does not elaborate on syntax or typical usage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it is a 'natural language → recipe YAML generator', which clearly identifies its function: converting natural language into a specific output format. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'akai_recipe' by specifying the input type (natural language) and output format (YAML). However, the phrase '(category: data)' adds little value.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like akai_recipe, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for invocation.

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