Generate README

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it grounds content in real project data, distinguishes between narrated and deterministically generated sections, and claims every claim traces to a fact. This exceeds what annotations (which are absent) would provide, though it does not specify whether the tool writes the README to disk or returns it.

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: two sentences that front-load the main purpose, then add essential detail about grounding and section generation. No filler words and every sentence provides value.

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 one simple parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, grounding, data sources, and generation behavior. It lacks explicit information about the return value or file-writing behavior, but for a README generator this is a minor gap.

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?

With zero schema descriptions, the description compensates by implicitly explaining that the projectPath parameter points to the project root containing source, dependencies, git history, etc. This gives meaningful context beyond the bare schema, even though it does not explicitly describe the parameter format.

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's purpose: to generate a professional README.md grounded in real project data. It specifies the output resource (README.md) and differentiates from sibling tools by detailing the content sections and grounding approach.

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 usage is implied: use this when you need a README for a project. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like generate_env_docs or generate_changelog.

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