generate_exhaustive_union_violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It specifies the input requirement (must be a z.union or z.discriminatedUnion) but does not mention side effects, potential errors, or performance characteristics. For a generation tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, each with a distinct purpose. The first states the action, the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose and usage. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., array of violation payloads), which would be helpful for completeness. The absence is minor given the straightforward nature.

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 describes the parameter with high coverage (100%), including the requirement that it evaluate to a z.union() or z.discriminatedUnion(). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and clearly identifies the resource ('violation payloads for every branch of a z.union() or z.discriminatedUnion() schema'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool generate_boundary_violations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use when generate_boundary_violations only covers one union variant and you need full branch coverage.' This tells the agent exactly the condition under which this tool is preferred over an alternative.

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