generate-code

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 does not state whether the generated code is returned only, whether it has side effects, whether the component must already exist, or what the output format looks like. 'Generate' implies code creation but leaves important behavior unspecified.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the primary purpose and keeps the core information immediately visible, though it is arguably too terse to fully support the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation metadata, so the description must carry more context. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., code string, file, snippet), how the optional includeScript affects output, or how this tool fits with related component tools. Given three parameters and a nested object, this is incomplete.

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 three parameters adequately. The description adds only the phrase 'with the specified props', which confirms the props parameter's purpose but does not meaningfully exceed the schema's own explanations.

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 action ('Generate'), a clear resource ('Vue component code'), and a key input ('specified props'). It is not a tautology and conveys the core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling 'generate-figma-component', so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-component, get-examples, or generate-figma-component. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it is the appropriate choice in a workflow.

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