generate_nestjs_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Generate'. It does not state whether files are written to disk, whether existing files are overwritten, whether the NestJS CLI is invoked, or whether the optional api_key is required for any external call. This is a meaningful gap for a code-generation tool.

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 filler. It conveys the essential purpose and key output components clearly and efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'generate' does concretely, what the output looks like, how the optional features affect generation, or what side effects occur. An agent would need to inspect the schema and make assumptions about file system behavior and authentication.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents module_name, features, and api_key. The feature enum values are not individually explained, but that is a schema limitation rather than a description failure.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate'), a clear target ('a NestJS module'), and the concrete artifacts it produces ('controller, service, and DTOs'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_nestjs_controller and generate_nestjs_service, which appear to produce only individual components.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many related scaffolds, such as generate_nestjs_controller, generate_nestjs_service, or cli_generate_scaffold. It does not mention prerequisites, project layout assumptions, or cases where a more granular tool would be preferable.

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