Juno Functions Eject

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about scaffolding boilerplate but does not disclose side effects like file overwriting or location. Description is consistent with annotations but adds limited behavioral depth.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource. Efficient and clear.

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 simple scaffold tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers core purpose and language options. It lacks detail on output location or overwrite behavior, but annotations fill some gaps. Reasonably 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% and includes enum for lang. The description lists the same language options ('Rust, TypeScript, or JavaScript') reinforcing but not adding new meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource 'required files for serverless functions', with language options. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it's an initialization step (alias: init). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other juno_functions tools.

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 as a first step ('to begin developing'), but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use. The alias helps, but guidance is minimal.

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