generate_pyobfus_config

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: default returns YAML text, auto-detects frameworks, and writes only when write=true. This covers the essential safety and output behavior, though lacks detail on error cases.

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 pack all essential information without extra fluff. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details behavior.

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 moderately complex tool (auto-detection), the description omits what happens on failure or invalid overrides, but the output schema covers return values. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 description explains 'write' and 'path' implicitly, but 'preset_override' is not explicitly described beyond the name. Given 0% schema coverage, it adds partial meaning but leaves ambiguity for one parameter.

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 generates a 'pyobfus.yaml' for a Python project, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_presets' or 'check_obfuscation_risks' by focusing on config generation.

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 implies usage for Python projects needing a config, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., if only viewing presets) or mention alternatives among siblings.

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