Generate Content

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms 'does not modify any document.' It adds extra context about calling an external AI model and the placeholder fallback. However, it does not discuss potential nondeterminism or model behavior beyond what openWorldHint implies.

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?

Three sentences covering core purpose, behavioral guarantees, usage guidelines, and environment dependency. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 3 parameters (one required, nested object) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, and parameter roles adequately. Minor gap: does not explain how context sub-fields interact, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optionally steered by project context... and a desired length,' which maps to the context and length parameters but does not add new details beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it generates new prose from a natural-language prompt, distinguishes itself from enhance_content (improves existing text) and analyze_document (critiques). The verb 'generate' and resource 'content' are specific and match the tool's name.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use enhance_content to improve existing text instead, or analyze_document to critique it.' Also mentions the environment requirement (OPENAI_API_KEY) and the fallback behavior without it.

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