generate_production_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'generates' templates, implying a non-destructive action, but does not describe any side effects, such as whether files are written to the workspace, whether it requires an existing project, or any permissions needed. Without annotations, this is a significant gap for a code 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?

The description is concise, two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then lists supported feature types and stack options. The only minor issue is that the list of supported values is also largely present in the schema, but the description's compact enumeration is still efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the input semantics well but lacks details on the output or usage context. It does not explain what the generated templates look like, how they are returned (e.g., files vs. inline), or how this relates to the overall workflow. With no output schema, the description should clarify the return format, which it doesn't.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (stack, feature, language), each with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds value by listing the supported values for feature types and stacks, which supplements the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal context (e.g., 'default' for stack), so a 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'generate' and the resource 'production-ready code templates' with specific features and stacks. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'generate_starter_repo' or other generation tools, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 usage by listing the supported stacks and feature types, giving context for when to use it (when generating production code). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as 'generate_starter_repo' for scaffold-level generation, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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