runprompt__generate_artifact

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as the use of quality gates and iterative repair rounds (max_repair_rounds), but it does not describe the return format, side effects, or failure behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 opens with a concise, front-loaded purpose statement and then uses a structured @param list. Every line is informative and scannable, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description thoroughly documents parameters but omits the return value or output structure, which is important given there is no output schema. It also lacks explicit usage prerequisites or when-to-use guidance, making it incomplete in context but adequate for basic invocation.

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 @param lines add meaningful human-readable definitions for all 9 parameters, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's role, optionality, defaults, and mode-specific behavior, providing value beyond the bare type declarations.

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 states a specific action ('generate a shell-as-mcp bundle') and a target location (SHELL_AS_MCP_SPEC_DIR). This clearly distinguishes the tool from all siblings, which are in unrelated domains like ffmpeg or ytdlp.

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 use when a shell-as-mcp bundle is required, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There are no direct runprompt siblings besides healthz, so the usage context is mostly self-evident but not spelled out.

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