generate_code

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: atomic design folder mapping, return format (entryFile, files, generatedAt), error behavior (throws if specName not found, returns failure reason on generation failure). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is somewhat long but well-structured with clear sections. Front-loads main action. Could be more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description adequately explains return value format. Covers prerequisites, error cases, atomic design folder structure, and post-generation steps (npm install). Complete for a code generation tool with one parameter.

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?

Input schema has one parameter specName with description; description adds that it is case-sensitive and must match a spec returned by get_specs. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3, but description adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates code from a saved spec and writes files, specifying the framework (shadcn/ui + Tailwind) and output structure (atomic design folders). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_spec and other design tools.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (spec must exist in registry, use get_specs to list, create_spec to create), clear usage context (after create_spec), and additional instructions for pages and npm install. No confusion about when to use versus alternatives.

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