cookie_generate_banner

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating the tool name. It does not disclose whether files are written, what output format is returned, whether an API call or API key is required, or what side effects may occur in the target project.

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 short and front-loaded with no wasted words. However, it is too terse to be considered appropriately sized for a tool with an undocumented parameter and no behavioral context.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description only names the artifact. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns, how to supply or interpret api_key, whether it modifies the project, or how to verify success, making the definition insufficient for correct 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 coverage is only 50%, leaving api_key completely unexplained. The description does nothing to clarify how api_key or directory are used in the generation process, so an agent has no semantic understanding of the parameters beyond the directory label.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Generate cookie consent banner.' This is distinguishable from sibling tools like cookie_generate_policy and cookie_add_preferences because it names the specific artifact being produced. It is unambiguous though minimal.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as cookie_add_preferences or cookie_generate_policy. No prerequisites, ordering, or typical call context are provided, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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