Generates or updates a README.md file with project guidelines and best practices derived from codebase analysis.
Update or create README.md with project guidelines and best practices
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guidelines | No | ||
| projectPath | No | ||
| analysisData | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'update or create' but never discloses whether an existing README is overwritten or merged, whether filesystem write permissions are needed, or if the operation is reversible — critical for a mutation 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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. No wasted words, though brevity here comes at the cost of substance.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested object parameter is significantly under-specified. The description omits overwrite behavior, required inputs, and return expectations.
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 0% for 3 parameters. The description gestures at 'guidelines' but says nothing about 'projectPath' (target location) or the nested 'analysisData' object, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 clear verb (update or create) and resource (README.md) plus the content type (project guidelines and best practices). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_project or generate_copilot_instructions, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no conditions. 'Update or create' implies a use case but leaves the agent to infer when updating is warranted over the other project tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.