generate_go_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not say whether existing go.mod files are overwritten, whether the tool makes network calls, whether authentication is required, or how 'curated dependencies' are selected. The term 'Generate' implies creation but leaves the actual side effects and dependencies behavior opaque.

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, concise, verb-first sentence with no filler. It earns a 4 because it is efficiently structured, but the ambiguous 'for the project type' phrase prevents a 5 since it adds uncertainty rather than precise meaning.

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 file-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how project type is inferred, what happens to an existing go.mod, why api_key is required, or what 'curated dependencies' concretely includes. An agent would be unsure whether providing only module_path is sufficient or whether additional context is needed.

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%, so the parameters are already documented at the property level. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'curated dependencies', which loosely connects to the dependencies parameter but does not clarify the undefined 'project type' concept or the purpose of api_key. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding distinctive value.

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 action and resource: 'Generate go.mod' with 'curated dependencies'. It is distinct enough to be recognized among the many Go-related and module-generation siblings. However, 'for the project type' is vague because no project type parameter or detection mechanism is described, so the purpose is clear but not fully specific.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are provided. The description only implies that it should be used when a go.mod file is needed, but it does not explain when to choose this over scaffold_go_project or other generation tools. Prerequisites such as how the project type is determined or why api_key might be needed are absent.

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