Generate project README

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It does so by stating the result is returned 'on the structured channel under markdown' and by mentioning max_nodes to cap large inventories. While it doesn't warn about potential cost of thumbnail generation, the read-only nature and added details make this solid.

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 only two sentences, yet it packs in the tool's purpose, output sections, key parameters, and the return channel. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return fields. It covers the scope (any COMP/project), lists all included sections, mentions relevant parameters, and specifies the structured output key. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit performance caveats, but max_nodes partially addresses large inventories.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining include_mermaid and max_nodes in the context of document generation, and the phrase 'optional preview thumbnail' connects to include_preview. These contextual hints go beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Produce a Markdown project document for any COMP or project' and then enumerates the exact sections (family/type counts, custom-parameter table, inputs/outputs, child inventory, external file dependencies). This level of detail clearly distinguishes it from more generic sibling tools like document_network or project_documentation_site.

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 provides clear context: it is for generating a Markdown project document for any COMP or project, with specific output components. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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