generate_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Generate documentation for code' implies a creation/write operation but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it modifies existing files, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. It lacks details about rate limits, error conditions, or whether the tool actually creates files or returns documentation text.

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 extremely concise at just four words: 'Generate documentation for code.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by communicating the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a documentation generation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of documentation is generated, whether it includes examples or explanations, what the return format is, or any limitations. For a tool that presumably produces structured output, more context is needed beyond the minimal purpose statement.

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 all three parameters (code, language, format) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('documentation for code'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_code' and 'ask_question' by focusing on documentation generation rather than code creation or question answering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'generate_code_to_file' might share some conceptual overlap).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when documentation generation is appropriate, what types of code benefit most, or how it differs from manual documentation. With siblings like 'generate_code' and 'ask_question', there's no indication of when to choose documentation generation over those options.

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