Emit LIFF SDK init code

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds value by detailing that output includes feature-detection guards and returns structured fields (code, install_command, notes), going beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise with a clear purpose statement and a structured bullet list for parameters. No redundant sentences, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Description covers return object shape and explains generated code nature (paste-ready, feature-detection). However, it lacks details about the exact format of 'notes' or 'install_command' and does not specify edge cases, leaving some gaps given no 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?

Schema has 50% description coverage (features and liff_id_placeholder have descriptions). Description compensates by listing all parameters with defaults and possible values (e.g., framework enum, features array), adding meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'LIFF SDK init code snippet', clearly stating the output is paste-ready with feature-detection guards. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool line_emit_login_snippet which handles login snippets.

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?

Description implies usage for generating init code but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like line_emit_login_snippet. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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