arch_generate_docs

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a generation action but does not disclose authentication requirements despite the api_key parameter, potential side effects, cost implications, or what the output will be. The '(Pro)' marker hints at gated/premium behavior without explaining it.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The term '(Pro)' adds unclear value and the sentence does not earn its place by conveying enough actionable information for a tool with four parameters.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool that accepts four parameters. It does not explain expected input format, required authentication flow, return shape, or how to choose between the various parameters. An agent gets the general purpose but not enough detail to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by suggesting the architecture_summary is the input from prior analysis, but it does not clarify how source_code or include_decisions relate to the generation process beyond their schema descriptions.

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 states a specific deliverable: generating comprehensive architecture documentation from project analysis. It clearly identifies the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like arch_analyze_structure or arch_generate_diagram.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'from project analysis' implies a prerequisite step, but it does not tell the agent to first run analysis or to use arch_analyze_structure when analysis is missing. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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