trpc_generate_router

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, but it only says 'Generate tRPC router with procedures.' It does not reveal that files are written to the given directory, how existing files are handled, whether scaffolding commands run, what the output looks like, or when the api_key is actually required.

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 eight-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler words. It is efficient and scannable, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate, complete trimming.

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 code-generation tool with no output schema, no annotations, a tiered api_key parameter, and a sibling list that includes the closely related trpc_generate_client, the description is insufficient. It does not state what files are produced, what 'procedures' entails, what project state is required, or how this differs from generating a client.

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%, with both directory and api_key already described in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to since the schema documents both fields.

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 verb ('Generate') and resource ('tRPC router with procedures'), making the produced artifact clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling trpc_generate_client, relying on the tool name for that distinction.

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 alternatives such as trpc_generate_client or other router generators like generate_fastapi_router and generate_express_api_routes. No prerequisites (e.g., existing tRPC project, Node.js setup) are mentioned, so the agent must infer all usage context.

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