generate_project_starter

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

Describes the core action (generating a project) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting, file creation, permissions). Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and is minimally adequate.

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?

Three sentences plus Args/Returns sections, no fluff. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 two-parameter generation tool, the description covers purpose and basic parameter semantics, but the return value is vaguely described as 'a summary', and there is no mention of success/failure conditions or template availability.

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 description explains project_name as directory name and template as the template to use, but does not enumerate valid template values beyond an example. With 0% schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete guidance.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates a starter project from a template, with specific examples (e.g., 'fastapi', 'react-vite'). Differentiates from siblings like 'manage_dev_environment' which manage environments rather than generate projects.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives or prerequisites. Does not mention that it might overwrite existing directories or require network access to download templates.

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