generate_django_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'generate' without clarifying side effects (e.g., overwrites settings.py, creates new files), authentication requirements, or the meaning of 'Pro feature' (e.g., paywall, limitations). This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies project configuration.

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 that conveys the core intent efficiently. It avoids redundancy and includes the 'Pro feature' note at the end. It could still be more informative without becoming verbose, but it demonstrates good structure.

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 generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the output looks like, any side effects on existing files, and the role of the api_key. It only vaguely mentions 'advanced settings' and the feature list, leaving an agent without enough context to correctly invoke it or interpret results. The lack of usage context and output details makes it incomplete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with clear descriptions (authentication for api_key, features list for features), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 advanced Django settings' and lists specific areas (caching, celery, security). It is distinct from obvious siblings like generate_django_app or scaffold_django_project, which focus on app/project scaffolding. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other settings-related tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like a Django project already existing. The 'Pro feature' hint is present but not explained in terms of when it applies. A user would have to infer that this is for advanced settings rather than basic ones.

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