Project documentation site

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description confirms files are written to out_dir but does not mention overwriting behavior or side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction, but adds little new behavioral detail.

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, no fluff. First sentence enumerates outputs, second sentence contrasts with sibling. Highly efficient.

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?

Describes the output package structure completely. No output schema, but the description explains what files are created. Could mention error handling or pre-existing out_dir behavior, but overall adequate for the complexity.

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 covers all 5 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds context by explaining the generated files and how include_thumbnails works with thumbs/ and gallery.md. Adds value beyond schema without redundancy.

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?

Description states verb 'compose' and resource 'documentation PACKAGE' with specifics: README.md, topology.md with Mermaid, optional thumbnails. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'generate_readme' by noting multi-file vs single file.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with generate_readme, indicating when to use this multi-file approach. Implies usage for sharing or archiving projects. Missing explicit 'when not to use' guidance but context is clear.

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