Generate Enforce Script Template

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

Description states 'generate ... without writing it' suggesting a read-like operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true which contradicts the generative nature. No other behavioral details (auth, side effects) are disclosed.

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 with two sentences (EN and DE). However, the bilingual repetition adds minor redundancy; overall 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 moderate parameter count and no output schema, the description lacks details on return format, error handling, and prerequisites. It is too brief for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 description mentions 'creator-tagged' and lists kinds, giving partial meaning to creatorTag and kind parameters, but does not explain className or baseClass constraints. With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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 'Enforce Script template' with specific kinds (class, component, modded class, Workbench plugin). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like write_project_file or analyze_enforce_script by focusing on template generation without writing.

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 for code generation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when-not' or exclusion criteria are provided, so guidance is minimal.

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