stl_oracle_generate

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds that it writes committed fixture files with byte-stable output. It does not mention details like overwriting or side effects beyond writing files, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and the description supplies relevant 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 concise, well-structured, and free of fluff. It clearly separates the main purpose from parameter details and includes a relevant example for spec_path.

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?

The description explains the tool's side effect (writing fixtures) and its role in verify runs, which is helpful. However, it omits any explanation of the snapshot parameter and does not describe the output schema or return value, leaving some gaps for a tool with four parameters and an output schema.

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 description covers spec_path with an example, out_dir as the output directory, and case as an optional filter, but does not explain the snapshot parameter at all. With 3 of 4 parameters described, coverage is near but not above the high threshold, and the missing snapshot is a notable gap.

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 computes expected departure outputs and writes committed fixture JSON files. It specifies the resource (fixture files) and the action (generate/write), and distinguishes itself from verification and case-listing tools by focusing on generation.

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 before a verify run ('so that a later verify run is a meaningful drift check') but does not explicitly name alternatives like stl_oracle_cases or stl_oracle_verify or state when not to use this tool. More direct guidance would improve clarity.

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