cliprompt_generate_wizard

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. 'Generate' implies creating a wizard, but the description does not state side effects (file writing, scaffolding), whether an api_key is required for generation, or what the user receives as a result.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, its brevity is closer to under-specification than deliberate conciseness, since it adds little value beyond the tool's own name.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 50% parameter coverage, and a huge sibling group of related CLI tools, this 4-word description is far from adequate. An agent has no way to know what an 'interactive CLI wizard' produces, what inputs matter, or how this tool relates to its neighbors.

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 50% (only 'directory' is documented as 'Project directory'), and the tool description adds nothing about parameters. The api_key parameter is completely unexplained — its purpose, whether it is needed for generation, and how it relates to directory are all ambiguous.

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 and resource ('Generate interactive CLI wizard'), which is clear and mostly restates the tool name. It does not differentiate from the many sibling CLI-generation tools (e.g., cli_generate_scaffold, cliprompt_add_validation), so it meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' bar.

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 provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cliprompt_add_validation, cli_add_commands, or cli_generate_scaffold. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given anywhere.

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