exis_generate_gateway

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Scaffolds' implies file creation, but it does not clarify whether existing files are overwritten, whether other files are modified, or what exact side effects occur. This is a gap for a code-generation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's action and purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters and a clear purpose, the description plus schema provide sufficient information to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. While return behavior is not described, this is acceptable given the scaffolding nature and absence of an output schema. Minor gap: no mention of file overwrite behavior.

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 input schema already provides full parameter descriptions (filePath and paradigm), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Scaffolds an idiomatic ExisJS Gateway (gateway.ts)' with a specific purpose ('for applying middleware/CORS/DI to a folder route'). The verb 'scaffolds' plus the resource and use-case distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate routes, plugins, or configs.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to create a gateway for middleware/CORS/DI on a folder route. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use exis_generate_route for routes', so it stops short of full guidance.

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