run_generator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that validation is not automatic, that generated artifacts are not committed, and that outputs are returned inline or via a temporary path. These are meaningful, non-obvious behavioral traits. It could add details about path lifetime or error behavior, but it already goes well beyond a generic description.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second covers side-effect exclusions, and the third covers return behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easily scannable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action and key behavioral boundaries, but it leaves gaps around how long the temporary path remains valid, how to retrieve or consume its contents, and how to discover valid generator-specific options. These details matter for fully correct invocation, especially since options is an open-ended nested object.

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 approximately 80%, so the schema already documents commit_id, generator, workspace_id, path, and options semantics. The description reinforces that generation happens against a specific commit and that only supported generators can be used, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a supported LinkML generator against a schema file at a specific commit.' This clearly identifies the action, the target, and the scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_generators and describe_generator, which only inspect generators rather than executing them.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose and by the statement that it 'Does not validate automatically,' but the description never names alternatives or explicitly states when to choose this tool over validate_schema or describe_generator. An agent must infer routing from sibling names and context rather than being given direct guidance.

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