generate_api_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the generated resource includes relationships, meta, pagination, and conditional loading, but it does not disclose side effects such as where the file is written, whether it overwrites existing files, or any prerequisites. The features are named, but behavioral details are thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and main features. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be fully self-sufficient. It does not explain parameter relationships, the meaning of 'conditional loading', output behavior, or file placement. An agent would need to rely on the schema and infer important details, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate. It mentions relationships, meta, pagination, and conditional loading, which relate to some parameters (relationships, withMeta, withPagination, fields), but it does not map each parameter explicitly. The term 'conditional loading' is ambiguous without further 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the specific resource 'Laravel 13 API Resource', and lists key features (relationships, meta, pagination, conditional loading). It distinguishes this tool from sibling generators like generate_eloquent_model or generate_policy.

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 when to use the tool (when creating an API resource) and the context is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or contrast with alternative sibling tools, so it misses a point for full usage guidance.

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