generate_dto

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states what is generated without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether files are overwritten, where files are written, or any prerequisites. The description does not mention side effects beyond 'generate'.

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, front-loaded sentence with every word carrying meaning. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the generated files look like, how the mapper integrates with the DTOs, or how this tool fits with sibling generator tools, leaving the agent to infer critical workflow context.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (entityName, fields, withMapper, packageName) and nested properties, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool generates Request/Response DTOs with validation annotations and a MapStruct mapper. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like generate_entity and generate_controller.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description (i.e., use this to generate DTOs), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it relative to alternatives or within a generation workflow.

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