Generate project README

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral detail: returns Markdown on a structured channel under 'markdown', with an optional preview thumbnail. No contradictions. The description clarifies that the tool produces a document without side effects, consistent with readOnlyHint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: first describes purpose and contents, second describes return format.

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 simple tool (3 parameters, all described, output schema present, annotations provided), the description covers the essential: what is produced, contents, optional thumbnail, return channel. The term 'structured channel' is slightly vague but acceptable as the output schema likely clarifies. Missing explicit differentiation from document_network, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'optional preview thumbnail' is already in include_preview description). 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 action: 'Produce a Markdown project document for any COMP or project' and lists specific contents (counts, table, inputs/outputs, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like document_network which documents network wiring, and generate_from_moodboard which generates from a moodboard.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools such as document_network or generate_library_index.

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