clidocs_generate_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the feature is Pro-gated (implying possible auth/licensing failure) but says nothing about side effects — whether files are written to the directory, whether existing docs are overwritten, or whether api_key is required to unlock the Pro behavior. For a tool with no read/write annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 maximally terse — five words, front-loaded, no fluff — which is structurally clean. However, this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness: it omits essential guidance (api_key role, output location, sibling selection) that would justify a higher score. It is appropriately sized but incompletely informative.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), yet the description still leaves a real gap: the api_key parameter is unexplained even though the '(Pro feature)' tag strongly suggests the key gates the feature. It also doesn't state what the generated docs look like or where they are written. An agent could attempt the call but may fail on the Pro gate or misuse api_key.

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 50%: 'directory' is documented as 'Project directory' in the schema, but 'api_key' has no description anywhere. The tool description adds zero parameter-level meaning and never mentions api_key, leaving an agent unable to determine whether api_key is needed for Pro validation, is optional, or what format it should take. At 50% coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameter and did not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate Markdown CLI docs' — the 'Markdown' modifier implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clidocs_generate_help and clidocs_generate_manpage, which target different output formats. However, it never explicitly names those siblings or clarifies what 'Markdown CLI docs' concretely means (README, docs page, reference file), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus its closest siblings (clidocs_generate_help, clidocs_generate_manpage, docs_generate_openapi). The parenthetical '(Pro feature)' hints at a licensing prerequisite but provides no selection criteria, no prerequisites beyond that, and no exclusions — an agent must guess which of several doc-generating tools fits the task.

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