web_reconstruct_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the exact artifacts produced and their formats, implying filesystem writes, but says nothing about whether the target URL is fetched live, permission/auth needs, reversibility of writes to outputDir, or the cost of processing bundles. Useful but materially incomplete for a multi-parameter 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?

One front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb, with no filler. It is dense and slightly run-on due to the artifact list, but every clause (sources, output formats, artifact names) earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is produced (substituting partly for a return-value section) and the range of acceptable targets. It omits prerequisites such as whether network access to the target is required and what happens on partial/failed reconstruction.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, setting baseline 3. The description's enumeration of output artifacts loosely maps to the generate* flags but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already says (defaults, accepted target types).

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?

States a specific verb ('Reconstructs') and precise resources: GraphQL SDL, gRPC-Web proto3 interfaces, derived from client bundles/AST queries/wire frames. The named artifacts (schema.graphql, service_definitions.proto, visualizer) clearly separate this from siblings like web_decompile_bundles or web_audit_api_catalog, which extract rather than reconstruct schemas.

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 context by listing input sources (bundles, AST queries, wire frames), which loosely signals when the tool applies. But it never names an alternative sibling or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer that this is the schema-reconstruction option among many extraction tools.

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