Module Info Generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether the generated file is written to disk, where it lands, whether it overwrites an existing .info.yml, or what permissions/path prerequisites apply to a reverse-engineering write operation.

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 with no filler, and the key qualifier '(reverse engineering)' is placed where it matters. It is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, but the 0% parameter coverage plus absent annotations leave too much unspecified for a tool that writes a file. The description does not compensate for what the structured fields omit.

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 0% and the description mentions neither 'machine_name' nor 'path'. It does not explain what machine_name identifies, whether path scopes the code being scanned, or what happens when path is omitted (default null).

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('.info.yml'), and the parenthetical '(reverse engineering)' clarifies the direction of the operation. It separates itself from siblings like module_create, though it never names that distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no named alternative such as module_create or module_config_schema_create. The agent must infer that this tool is only for scaffolding a .info.yml from existing code.

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