retry_generate_middleware

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'generates' middleware, but does not explain whether it writes files, scaffolds a project, requires an API key, or what side effects occur. The described 'configurable policies' are not enumerated in the description, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler words, and the primary action and resource appear early. While it is not elaborate, it is efficiently structured for its length.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and the presence of five parameters, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain the role of service_name/language, what 'configurable policies' concretely include, whether an API key is required for generation, or what the generated middleware looks like. The large set of similarly named siblings further increases the need for more contextual detail.

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 all five parameters. The description's reference to 'configurable policies' loosely hints at max_retries and retryable_status_codes, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clear resource ('retry middleware') and indicates the domain ('for HTTP clients') and configurability ('configurable policies'). It is clear enough to understand the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like http_add_retry or retry_configure_backoff.

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 phrase 'configurable policies for HTTP clients' implies the intended use case, but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over close siblings such as http_add_retry, retry_configure_backoff, or retry_add_circuit_breaker. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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