generate_sdk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It positively describes the output (complete SDK with error handling) but fails to disclose limitations, such as potential need for manual adjustments, rate limits, or dependency on the accuracy of the reversed contract. The description does not mention any destructive or privacy implications.

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 concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses clear structure: general statement, list of inputs, description of output. However, it could be slightly more streamlined by avoiding redundancy with schema descriptions.

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 complexity of the nested input schema and the lack of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks specifics on how the SDK code is returned (e.g., as a string, file download) and does not cover error scenarios or limitations. For a tool generating complete code, more detail on the output format would enhance completeness.

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 mentions key input fields (url, method, headers, body template, sign algorithm) that mirror the schema properties. However, it adds little beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not explain the nested signSpec or loginSpec in detail). With schema description coverage at 50% and the parameter descriptions in the schema being detailed, the description adds marginal value for understanding parameter semantics.

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 ready-to-use SDK from a reversed API contract, specifying supported languages (Python, Node, Go) and key features like request construction, crypto signing, error handling, and usage examples. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., detect_crypto, identify_obfuscation) which focus on analyzing cryptographic aspects rather than generating client code.

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 when you have an API spec (url, method, sign algorithm, params) but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or mention of prerequisites beyond the input schema.

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