generate_go_handlers

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 disclosing side effects, but it only states the function without saying whether the tool writes files to disk, overwrites existing code, or requires an existing Go project. The single useful extra signal is '(Pro feature)', which alerts the agent to an access restriction, but for a code-generation tool whose mutation footprint is invisible this is insufficient.

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 9-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler, repetition, or schema duplication. The parenthetical '(Pro feature)' earns its place by conveying an access constraint.

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 and no output schema, the description must carry substantial weight, but it neither explains what the generated output looks like nor what happens when the all-optional parameters are omitted (e.g., is an endpoints list needed in practice?). It also leaves the meaning of the Pro gating ambiguous — an agent can't tell whether the call will fail without a Pro entitlement, making this too thin for a 3-parameter generation tool.

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% — api_key, endpoints, and framework each have descriptions in the input schema — so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the schema's own text, though 'middleware and routing' loosely anticipates the endpoints and framework parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') with a concrete resource ('HTTP handler boilerplate') and adds scope qualifiers ('with middleware and routing'), making the tool's function clear. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast related siblings like scaffold_go_project or generate_go_module, though the 'Go + HTTP handler' framing creates reasonable implicit separation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scaffold_go_project, generate_go_module, or http_generate_wrapper. Only the parenthetical '(Pro feature)' hints at a licensing precondition, not a usage condition, so an agent has no basis for choosing between this and its siblings.

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