generate_vite_ssr_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds two useful facts beyond the schema: the generated config enables streaming and hydration, and the feature is Pro-gated (implying entitlement checks). But it does not disclose whether files are written/overwritten, whether api_key is required to exercise the Pro feature, or what happens to an existing Vite config.

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?

A single 11-word sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then adds the two feature differentiators. The '(Pro feature)' parenthetical efficiently signals gating context. Every word earns its place; nothing is redundant or missing from a brevity standpoint.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and very close siblings (generate_vite_config, generate_vite_plugins), the definition is too thin. It omits sibling routing, behavioral effects (file creation/overwrite), and any expectation about when api_key is required. An agent has no basis to decide between this and the sibling Vite tools without opening schemas.

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 schema already documents api_key, framework, and streaming. The description's mention of 'streaming' merely echoes the streaming parameter, and 'hydration' hints at a default behavior that is not parameterized. This is the baseline 3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no meaningful param-level 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Generate Vite SSR configuration') and adds distinguishing details ('streaming and hydration') that separate it from a plain Vite config. The SSR scope is reinforced by the tool name itself, which differentiates it from siblings like generate_vite_config and generate_vite_plugins. However, it stops short of explicitly naming these siblings or stating what it is not, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the closely related generate_vite_config or generate_vite_plugins. There are no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Vite project), no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. The only contextual signal is '(Pro feature)', which hints at entitlement but says nothing about selection criteria.

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