generate_code

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

Description clearly states the tool generates code, implying a read-only operation without side effects. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it could explicitly state that no modifications are made to the database, but overall it is clear enough.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the essential purpose and output types. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly concise.

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 absence of an output schema and moderate parameter count (5), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It does not specify return format, but that is implicit. Suitable for a generation tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description provides context but does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Generate'), the resource ('table's schema'), and three specific output types (TypeScript interface, C# class, CREATE TABLE script). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'describe_table' which provide schema info rather than code.

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?

Implies usage when code generation from a table schema is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'describe_table' for schema info, 'generate_insert_scripts' for data scripts). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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