generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is asynchronous (returns immediately) and that generation takes ~5 minutes. It does not cover failure modes, concurrency limits, or required permissions. The info is useful but incomplete for a fully transparent behavior profile.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds crucial timing and polling instructions. No unnecessary words; front-loaded structure.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one parameter, the description covers the basic async flow but omits details like what 'generation' produces, handling of errors, or state constraints. It is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to use without prior knowledge.

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 only parameter 'projectId' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no details about its format, source, or constraints. The agent must infer it from context, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 action: 'Start generation for an existing project.' It uses a specific verb-noun pair. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'iterate' or 'export', though referencing 'get_status' provides some indirect distinction.

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 solid usage guidance by noting that the tool returns immediately and then directs to poll 'get_status' for completion, which is a sibling tool. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mention prerequisites like generation state, but the polling direction is helpful.

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