generate_plugin_boilerplate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions generating code 'instantly' but does not specify side effects (e.g., file creation), permissions needed, or whether it returns code or writes to disk. The behavioral impact is 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks context about return values, side effects (e.g., directory creation), and prerequisites (e.g., Lampa environment). The agent may not know what 'get working code instantly' entails operationally.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'select the features you need,' which aligns with the features parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the details.

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 a 'ready-to-use Lampa plugin boilerplate' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'scaffold_plugin_integration' by emphasizing 'real patterns from existing plugins' and instant working code.

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 through 'select the features you need' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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