generate_api_types

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

No annotations provided, so description partially carries burden. It describes the behavior (generation from OpenAPI) but lacks details on file system changes, overwrite behavior, or network access for URLs.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Could include a bit more structure but efficient.

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?

With 6 params and no output schema, description could elaborate on return values or side effects. It's adequate but not complete for a code generation tool.

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 coverage is low (17%), but description doesn't add meaning beyond schema for most params. It provides general purpose but no detailed guidance on each parameter, so baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states it generates TypeScript types and client code from OpenAPI spec. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like check_i18n_issues or get_project_structure, which are unrelated, so it's still clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings are unrelated, so context is implied but no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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