generate_module

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that generating a module will create files on disk, whether it overwrites existing content, or if it requires a initialized project. This leaves the agent unaware of potential side effects.

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 that front-loads the primary purpose and lists concrete outputs. There is no filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 scaffolding tool that generates multiple files and a registry entry, the description omits crucial operational context such as the target directory, overwrite behavior, and any required project setup. With no annotations or output schema, an agent cannot anticipate the tool's side effects or confirm a successful invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. It correctly avoids redundancy, but it also does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., how includeCommands interacts with moduleId).

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') and a precise resource ('module scaffolding') while enumerating the exact deliverables (package.json, index.ts, tsconfig.json, registry entry). This makes the tool's intent unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_entity or generate_workflow, which target different artifacts.

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 provision of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_plugin or generate_page. The description merely states what the tool does without any context about project structure, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different generator would be more appropriate.

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