Inspect Codegen Context

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it combines multiple data sources, which is useful, but doesn't disclose potential rate limits, auth needs, or what the output context contains (though output schema exists). With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, but the first sentence is in Chinese while the rest is in English, creating linguistic inconsistency. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, but the parameter explanations could be more structured. It's adequately concise but not optimally organized.

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 tool has an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description doesn't need to explain return values or safety. However, with 10 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should document more parameters to be complete. It covers two parameters but leaves eight undocumented, which is a significant gap for a tool with many inputs.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains two parameters (backend_module_dir and backend_package_module) with format examples and fallback behavior, which is helpful. However, 8 other parameters (menu_name, table_name, entity_name, module_name, business_name, parent_menu_id, workspace_root, parent_menu_name) are undocumented in both schema and description. This partial coverage means the description adds value but doesn't fully address the gap.

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 the tool builds codegen context from config rules, backend defaults, and SQL menu data, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like generate_codegen_scaffold or inspect_table_schema, and the purpose is somewhat vague about what 'context' entails. It's clear enough for a technical user but lacks sibling routing.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring workspace configuration or table schema inspection first, nor does it exclude any scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the context of sibling tools.

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