generate_logic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses key behavior: the output is 'pasteable' code, implying a non-persistent, return-a-snippet action, and it will '标注对应官方节点', telling the agent what the result includes. It does not explicitly state whether it writes files, but the pasteable wording is a strong behavioral signal.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and output, then adds the distinguishing annotation behavior. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 stub-generation tool, the description plus schema covers what is generated and gives representative goal examples. However, it does not explain mode semantics, possible output format details, or any relationship to prerequisites like scaffold_project, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents goal and graphType. The main description adds useful examples for goal content (g.server, .on, timed settlement), which helps the agent formulate the parameter value, but mode remains an opaque enum with no added semantics in either the schema or the description.

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') and a concrete output resource ('pasteable genshin-ts TypeScript stub'), and further specifies that it annotates official nodes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_node, list_nodes, scaffold_project, and compile_project, which involve introspection, scaffolding, or building, not logic-stub generation.

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 phrase '根据目标' (based on the goal) conveys when the tool is appropriate: when the agent has a target behavior and needs generated logic code. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for related tasks, such as scaffold_project for project setup or lookup_node for node references.

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