sch_generate_toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data read (project document list), the filtering rule (.SchDoc sheets only, in project order), that the frame lands on the active sheet, and crucially that the operation is not idempotent. It omits permission or side-effect details on the project file, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope in sentence one, then mechanism, then caveat, then structured Args/Returns. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers mechanism, placement target, non-idempotency, parameter units and defaults, and the failure mode (error when no schematic sheets exist). Since an output schema exists, the Returns line is mildly duplicative but does add the error condition.

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, and it does: it gives the units for x1/y1/x2/y2 (mils), what they mean (frame corners) plus the default shape, and the default title heading. It also explains project_path's fallback to the active project, adding meaning the bare nullable string schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: places a table-of-contents note listing every schematic sheet, and describes the mechanism (reads document list, keeps .SchDoc sheets in project order, drops a numbered text frame). It does not compare itself to a sibling such as sch_place_text_frame, which handles the primitive placement this wraps, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ("Run it on a dedicated cover/index sheet") and an operational caveat with the corrective action (re-running leaves the prior frame, delete it first). It doesn't say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is explicit rather than implied.

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