generate_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions 'auto-generate' but does not state whether files are overwritten, if permissions are needed, or any other behavioral implications of writing documentation files. This is a significant gap for a generation tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is relevant and there is no wasted information.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and likely performs file writes, the description lacks critical details such as output location, overwrite behavior, and return values. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's effects without additional context.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents modulePath and outputType adequately.

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 generates README.md and API documentation for a module, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling generate_* tools by focusing on documentation outputs rather than code or module scaffolding.

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 for generating documentation for a module, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like generate_module or analyze_module. There is no exclusionary guidance or prerequisites mentioned.

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