generate_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool creates markdown documentation but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file writes, overwriting), prerequisites (e.g., being in an Unreal Engine project), or limitations. This is a minimal but acceptable level of transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words, and key output details (markdown, API information) are included efficiently.

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 relatively simple tool (3 params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it states the source (C++ code), output format (markdown), and content scope. It lacks details about output location or environment-specific constraints, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 schema already fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it only describes the tool's overall purpose. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Auto-generate comprehensive documentation from C++ code' with specific content types (comments, metadata, classes, functions, properties). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that generate code templates or diagrams.

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 provides clear context: it is for generating markdown documentation from C++ code. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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