生成 README（只读）

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It highlights that the tool is 'read-only' (只读), meaning it doesn't write files, which is a key safety trait. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like, whether it analyzes the repository, or any limitations. The description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 that communicates the core purpose and behavior without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context. It does mention read-only return, which hints at the output, but it doesn't explain the role of each parameter or the expected result. The tool is relatively simple, so the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not. The parameter names (name, features, description) are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema itself, providing no guidance on expected formats or how the parameters relate to the generated README.

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: generating README Markdown from project information. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('README Markdown'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like generateReadmePro, which might be a more advanced variant, so it loses one point.

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 alternatives such as generateReadmePro or writeFile. The read-only hint in the title is helpful but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool or what exclusions apply.

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