Generate Lenis Setup

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it generates code, which is consistent. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide; however, it details the output components (install, imports, code, CSS). No contradiction.

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 well-structured with a summary, parameter list, return description, and examples. It is not overly verbose given the number of parameters and options. However, the Args section largely duplicates the schema, which could be trimmed for slightly better conciseness.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (all optional), a nested object, and no output schema. The description adequately explains the generated output content and provides examples for common use cases. It covers the complexity sufficiently, though specifying the output format (e.g., string of code with markdown) would enhance completeness.

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 fully describes each parameter. The description's Args section mostly repeats schema info (defaults, types) and adds examples. This adds some clarity but does not substantially extend beyond the schema. The 'settings' object is described similarly in both.

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 clearly states it generates complete Lenis setup code for a given framework, listing supported frameworks and optional integrations. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like debug or pattern creation.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., 'Set up Lenis with GSAP in React') and includes examples. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements or direct comparison to alternatives, but the provided examples and parameter combinations effectively imply correct usage scenarios.

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