generate_ui5_feature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'dry-run support' which hints at a preview capability, but doesn't explain what happens in dry-run versus actual execution, whether files are created/modified, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. For a complex scaffolding tool with 12 parameters that likely creates files, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the key feature (dry-run support). There's no wasted verbiage or 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 tool's complexity (12 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is inadequate. While the output schema may document return values, the description doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or usage context. For a scaffolding tool that likely creates/modifies project files, more guidance is needed about its effects and appropriate use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 12 parameters (many with nested objects), the description provides almost no parameter guidance. It mentions 'dry-run support' which corresponds to the 'dryRun' parameter, but doesn't explain the other 11 parameters like 'featureName', 'namespace', 'manifestPath', 'allowOverwrite', or the complex 'routing' and 'i18n' objects. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Generate an end-to-end UI5 feature scaffold (view/controller/fragment/routing/i18n) with dry-run support.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('UI5 feature scaffold'), and scope ('end-to-end' covering multiple components). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_ui5_controller or generate_ui5_view_logic, which appear to handle individual components rather than comprehensive scaffolding.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'dry-run support' but doesn't explain when to use dry-run mode versus actual generation, or when this comprehensive scaffolding tool should be chosen over the more specific sibling tools (e.g., generate_ui5_controller for just a controller). There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.

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