module_generate_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that it 'Produces a markdown README' but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, requires a specific module structure, or if it has any side effects. Behavioral traits like read-only vs destructive are not addressed.

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: a one-sentence title, a brief paragraph, and a bullet list for parameters. It front-loads the purpose and uses minimal words. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It mentions the output is markdown, which suffices. It covers the required parameter (name) and describes optional parameters. However, it does not explain the exact structure of the JSON arrays or mention if the module must already exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a documentation generation tool.

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 add meaning. The bullet list provides brief definitions for each parameter, e.g., 'Module name.' and 'JSON array of MI commands (same format as module_scaffold).' This adds some context but lacks detail on exact format or constraints. It references another tool for format, which is helpful but not fully self-contained.

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: 'Generate README documentation for an OpenSIPS module.' It further explains the output is a markdown README with parameter, MI command, and usage documentation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like module_scaffold (which creates module structure) and module_validate (which validates modules).

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., if a module must already exist) or scenarios where generating docs is appropriate. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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