UI5 ObjectPage section scaffold (freestyle)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is non-mutating (it 'returns the content' for review rather than writing files), and actually informs the generated code (SmartTable in table mode, SimpleForm in form mode). It names the write step as a separate tool, making the no-mutation behavior explicit. Some details like output format are implied but not stated.

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, zero waste. Every clause carries information: the pattern delivered, the mode variants, i18n handling, handler stubs, and the explicit return-then-write-then-validate workflow. Highly compressed without losing specificity.

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 scaffold generator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behaviors: what it generates, why its safety (non-mutating, returns for review) matters, and the required follow-up tools. It fully compensates for missing annotations on the mutation/safety front. The main shortfall is not explicitly describing the exact return format, though 'Returns the content' gives reasonable clarity.

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 the schema documents all 6 parameters well. The description adds meaning by explaining the mode semantic ('table = SmartTable of an association; form = SimpleForm of fields' is from schema, described). The description itself adds mode-to-component mapping context beyond basic schema, but most parameter semantics are carried by the schema, so baseline 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 a specific verb ('Generates') with a precise resource ('an ObjectPage section for a freestyle UI5 app') and describes the concrete pattern delivered: fragment with uxap:ObjectPageSection, SmartTable or SimpleForm, dotted i18n keys, handler stubs, i18n lines. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ui5_validate_view and cap_write_files by naming them explicitly as downstream steps.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Returns the content so you review it, write it with cap_write_files and validate it with ui5_validate_view.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool (scaffold generation) and explicit next steps, implicitly distinguishing it from validation (ui5_validate_view) and writing (cap_write_files) tools in the sibling set.

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