export_java

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: the required Java/Jakarta stack target, the convention that FKs are emitted as scalar fields, and a caution that output must be reconciled with the existing project's versions and ORM before adoption.

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?

Two tight sentences with the output type front-loaded, no boilerplate. The second sentence about checking versions/ORM is compressed and slightly ambiguous ('adopting files'), but it carries real information rather than filler.

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 code-generation tool with no output schema and an undescribed nested input object, the description covers the what but omits the how — package naming, what happens to the generated files, and how the schema object maps to entities. Adequate as a summary, incomplete as an operational spec.

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 0%, and the description never mentions either parameter. The 'schema' input (an open object with nested content) and the 'package' parameter — two of the most consequential inputs for naming and classpath layout — are left entirely unexplained in both structured and unstructured fields.

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 gives a specific verb (generate) and highly specific resource (Java 17+/Jakarta JPA entities and Spring Data repositories), including a notable implementation detail (scalar FK fields). It is clear what is produced, but it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling export_sql, so an agent must infer the routing from the target language alone.

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 only guidance is 'Check the existing project's versions and ORM before adopting files', which is advice about post-generation review, not about when to choose this tool over export_sql or the template tools. There is no stated precondition, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.

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