generate_jetbrains_config

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 the tool generates a file but doesn't describe where the file is created (e.g., in the current directory or a specified path), whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. For a file-generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Generates a .idea/runConfigurations XML file for JetBrains IDEs') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of generating IDE configuration files, the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, output format, or error handling. While conciseness is good, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so all three parameters (projectName, language, entryPoint) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they influence the generated XML. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'language' refers to programming language or IDE language setting, or if 'entryPoint' is optional. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Generates') and the specific resource ('.idea/runConfigurations XML file for JetBrains IDEs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_vscode_launch or generate_aider_config by specifying the JetBrains IDE context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what the XML file is used for (e.g., run/debug configurations), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a JetBrains project), compare it to similar config generators (like generate_vscode_launch), or specify scenarios where it's appropriate (e.g., setting up IDE run configurations for a project). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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