readme_add_api_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it adds that the API reference is generated from source code and signals a Pro requirement. However, it does not state whether the tool returns the updated README, whether external files are modified, or how authentication is enforced despite the api_key parameter.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the main action, target resource, and input source, and the '(Pro)' marker is the only extra but relevant signal.

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 and the schema documents all parameters, but with no output schema or annotations the description does not fully explain return behavior, how format affects output, or the Pro/authentication condition. It is adequate for a basic call but leaves gaps for fully correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the four parameters. The description only adds the 'source code' and 'README' context already visible in the parameter names, without adding new meaning to readme_content, source_code, format, or api_key.

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 clear verb ('Generate and add') and resource ('API reference section to a README'), and it identifies the input ('from source code'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools such as readme_generate and readme_add_badges, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it. The description implies a use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection from related tool names.

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