generate_cli_command

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds substantial context: the command embeds canonical JSON with POSIX shell quoting to preserve fields lacking a copy-URI form, credential values become environment variable placeholders, and the required variable names are returned separately. This is meaningful behavior beyond the safety annotation, though the exact return shape is only implied.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the differentiator and the credential/quoting behavior. Every sentence carries weight; only marginally more could be trimmed.

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 read-only generator with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it produces, that it does not execute, and how credentials and non-URI-representable fields are handled. It conveys that variable names come back separately, which is the key return-value nuance, though a fuller picture of the returned command/variables would make it complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `name`, `route`, `batch_size`, and `concurrency`. The description ties the `route` parameter to `start_route`'s input and alludes to 'tuning overrides', but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Generate) and resource (a copyable, headless `mqb` command for a route), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `start_route` by noting it 'does not start anything'. An agent can tell it apart from start_route and the other lifecycle tools without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly frames usage relative to `start_route`: it accepts the same route JSON and tuning overrides but produces a command instead of running one. This gives the agent the selecting condition, though it stops short of stating explicit when-to-use/when-not scenarios or other alternatives.

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