generate_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions file generation without addressing side effects (e.g., overwriting), required permissions, or behavior on invalid input. The mutation aspect is implied but not detailed.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core function without extraneous information. However, lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for usage) that could improve scannability.

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 moderate complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the expected format of the 'design' object, what happens upon success or failure, or whether the output files are returned or written to disk. More context is needed for reliable agent invocation.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, maintaining adequacy without enhancement.

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 clearly states the tool generates ARCHITECTURE.md and .ai-context.yaml files based on architecture design results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its output format and target audience (human vs AI).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the obvious prerequisite of having a design from design_architecture. The description only states what it does, not the context of usage.

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