sc:document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'documentation generation' but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. The user cannot infer whether this tool is read-only or what it returns, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The addition of 'Category: knowledge, Priority: RECOMMENDED' is meta-information that could be structured elsewhere, but it does not detract significantly. It earns a 4 for being efficient.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to use the parameters effectively. The schema descriptions help, but the tool-level description lacks essential context for an agent to use it properly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters adequately. The tool-level description adds no additional meaning beyond 'comprehensive documentation', so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Comprehensive documentation generation with best practices' clearly states the tool's purpose as generating documentation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like sc:explain or sc:analyze, which could also produce documentation-like output, thus missing the differentiation for a top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools (e.g., sc:explain, sc:troubleshoot). The description lacks explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives, making it difficult for an AI agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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