get_codegen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the return value and its possible values, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it can error, or any prerequisites. It does not explicitly state it is a safe getter, leaving behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a structured 'Returns' block to enumerate possible values. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema is present. The description explains the semantic meaning of each return value, which is valuable context beyond the schema. It could mention default behavior or error handling, but for a simple getter, it is 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to document). The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the return values, which is beyond schema requirements. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 returns the current API client generator selection ('Aktualny wybór generatora klienta API') and lists the possible return values (orval, none, graphql) with their meanings. It distinguishes itself from sibling getters by focusing on this specific configuration.

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 the tool is used to check the current codegen setting but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It lacks exclusions or context about typical invocation (e.g., before generating clients). The purpose is clear enough for basic use, but no explicit usage guidance is provided.

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