run_generate

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action and output but does not mention side effects (e.g., writing files to disk), prerequisites (e.g., a valid config file), or what the tool returns. For a generation tool that likely mutates the project directory, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and result, then adds the CLI reference. There is no fluff or redundancy. It could benefit from a second sentence about prerequisites, but it earns a high score for efficiency and clear focus.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover the essentials. It states what the tool does and references the CLI, but it omits return value details, potential side effects, and any environmental requirements. Since the tool is simple (one parameter), the definition is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that has never seen the CLI command.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter (`dir`) with a clear description and default value, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter, such as path validation or behavior when omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Run the platform engine') and the concrete outcome ('render all previews and produce a bundle (manifest + images)'). It also references the CLI equivalent (`phonebook generate`), which anchors its role. The intended output clearly differentiates it from siblings like run_build or analyze_coverage, even though no explicit comparison is made.

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 usage when you need to generate previews and a bundle, but it does not state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives. The CLI equivalence gives a hint, but there is no explicit context about choosing this over run_build or other sibling tools. It falls at 'implied usage' rather than providing clear guidance.

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