generate_ignore

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) behavior. The description adds the context of generating 'reasonable defaults' but does not clarify whether the tool overwrites an existing .astrographignore or preserves custom entries. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Auto-generate' and the resource '.astrographignore'. It is succinct with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description adequately conveys the core behavior. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'write' or 'edit', and it does not mention the fate of an existing .astrographignore file, leaving some context incomplete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. There is no need for parameter descriptions. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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 action ('Auto-generate') and target resource ('.astrographignore') with a specific purpose ('excluding files from indexing'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'write' and 'edit' which are generic file operations.

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 implies usage when a default ignore file is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manually creating the file via 'write' or 'edit'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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