codix.license.inject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a design constraint ('without hardcoding secrets') but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. 'Generate' suggests a non-mutating operation, but this is not explicitly 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?

The description is a single sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about inputs, outputs, and usage. It only states the tool generates instructions, leaving significant gaps for a 3-parameter tool. The description is inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (stack, productType, offlineGraceHours). It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('license integration instructions'), making the tool's purpose clear. The qualifier 'without hardcoding secrets' distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like codix.api.generate or codix.docs.generate.

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 implies the tool should be used when license integration instructions are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No clear comparison with sibling tools is given, so guidance is only implicit.

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