generate_readme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the README is generated 'automáticamente' from code, but it does not disclose whether the tool writes to the repository, overwrites an existing README, requires permissions, or returns the content. Given that the tool appears to create or modify a file, this lack of side-effect information 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary bulk. The word 'profesional' is slightly stylistic rather than operational, but the overall definition remains appropriately concise and scannable.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin on operational detail: it does not explain the return value, whether the README is committed to the repository, how the code analysis works, or what the template parameter controls. An agent could select the correct tool from name and description alone, but it would lack enough context to predict side effects or interpret the result.

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?

The input schema documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema: it does not clarify what 'template' values like 'sanitario', 'tech', or 'lab' mean, nor how owner and repo are used. Per the high-coverage baseline, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 uses the specific verb 'Genera' and identifies a concrete deliverable ('un README profesional') plus the input source ('basado en el código del repo'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like review_repository, clean_repository, and apply_improvements, which perform different operations. The term 'profesional' adds little precision, but the core action/resource pairing 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a README should be generated from repository code. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is therefore present only by inference, not by direct statement.

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