readme

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 mentions input sources and capabilities but omits critical behavioral details such as whether the tool modifies files, what happens on missing input, or what the output format is. The safety and side effects are unclear.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes key details (source files, multi-language, diff) without unnecessary words.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description partially covers the needed context. It explains the input sources and general capability but does not specify the return format, behavior of the 'diff' action, or how optional sections are used. More detail would be beneficial.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by revealing the source files and the fact that the tool generates content, which is not in the schema. It provides context that helps understand the tool's purpose beyond the parameter 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 that the tool generates README content from specific files (TOOL_DEFINITIONS/pyproject.toml/STEERING_CONTENT) and supports multi-language and diff comparison. It uses a specific verb 'generate' and identifies the resource 'README', differentiating it from siblings like 'auto_save' or 'graph'.

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 over alternatives. The description does not explain the difference between 'generate' and 'diff' actions or when each is appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.

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