Generate jOOQ config

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it lists every base table via a regex, excludes MCPg bookkeeping tables, and adds forcedType mappings for json/jsonb columns. It also mentions the default package and overridability. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior, and there is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 paragraph, around 150 words, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, distinguishing the tool, detailing the output, and noting configurable options. There is no redundancy or wasted words, making it highly 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?

The description covers the main behavior and output details, including the XML structure. However, it does not specify how the output is delivered (e.g., as a file or text) or the file name. With an output schema present (though not shown), the description is mostly complete but could provide a bit more on the delivery mechanism.

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 (25%), with only the 'database' parameter having a description. The description adds meaning for 'target_package' by mentioning the default and override, but 'schema' and 'target_directory' are not explicitly explained. While the schema provides titles and defaults, the description does not fully compensate for the low coverage, earning a 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads a PostgreSQL schema and emits a jooq-codegen configuration XML. It distinguishes itself from other exporters by explaining that jOOQ generates Java code itself, and the artifact is the config file, not the code. This makes the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like generate_diesel_schema or generate_prisma_schema.

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 on when to use this tool: when the user needs a jOOQ configuration file for code generation, as opposed to other exporters that produce different outputs. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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