apiGenerator

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that files are generated (migration, model, controller, routes, tests) but does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether routes are appended, or if any prerequisites (e.g., an existing Laravel project) are required. This is a significant gap for a mutating code-generation tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Generate REST API') and lists the key deliverables. There is no wasted content; every phrase adds value.

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's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain when to use this generator over siblings like crudGenerator, nor does it mention important context such as whether migrations are run automatically or how the generated code integrates with existing project structure. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks surrounding context.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it does list the overall output artifacts, which indirectly relates to how fields and entity might be used. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('REST API for a Laravel entity'), listing the components produced (migration, model, API controller, routes, tests). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crudGenerator, but its scope is clear enough to be understood.

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 implies usage—when you need to generate a REST API for an entity—but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crudGenerator or makeModel. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so the guidance is minimal.

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