generate_standard_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a coder expert model is used, that a test suite is co-generated when generate_test_file is true, and that all parameter values must be English. However it omits mutation/return behavior and error conditions, so the behavioral profile is only partially covered.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the English-translation requirement is flagged as IMPORTANT where an agent will see it. The parenthetical '(Template 1)' and '(such as ...)' lists are slightly loose but not wasteful.

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 tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is materially incomplete. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the vast majority of input parameters remain undefined, which is a significant gap for a code-generation tool.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions generate_test_file's conditional effect, the English requirement, and lists a few field names (task, description, constraints, edge_cases), but leaves signature, language, test_cases, context, integration_note, and dependencies_allowed with no semantic explanation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate code for a standard function spec') and names the template variant, which helps distinguish it from generate_multi_function_module and generate_bugfix_refactor. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explains the conditional effect of generate_test_file but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over generate_multi_function_module or generate_bugfix_refactor. There are no prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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