Generate a problem

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

The description goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by clarifying that the same seed produces the same problem, and it discloses that test outputs are produced by running the reference solution on this host. This is meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, though it does not explicitly describe persistence side effects.

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?

Two sentences carry a dense, front-loaded list of deliverables plus important behavioral notes. There is no filler, repetition of the schema, or explanatory padding; every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists and the sibling context is complex, the description provides the essential facts an agent needs: what is generated, determinism, and that execution happens locally. It falls just short of fully complete because it does not say whether the result is persisted or how it connects to validation/judging workflows.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds value by explaining seed determinism and deterministic hidden tests. It explicitly connects the seed parameter to reproducibility, which helps the agent understand consequences of changing seed or num_hidden.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: generate a complete problem from a built-in generator, then enumerates exactly what is produced (statement, constraints, samples, tests, validator, editorial, solution). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like repovive_generate_house_problem or the build_* problem-editing tools.

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 when this tool is useful—when a full problem is needed from a generator—but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives such as repovive_validate_problem, repovive_judge_solution, or repovive_generate_house_problem. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites beyond pointing to repovive_list_problem_templates in the schema.

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