sc_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a high-level outcome ('Create comprehensive docs') and does not explain whether existing files are overwritten, whether it analyzes source code, what the command arguments do, or how the persona affects output. The schema descriptions for parameters are generic and do not fill the 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 only 6 words, which is under-specification for a tool with 4 parameters, enum flags, a persona selector, and nested evidence objects. It repeats the title's concept ('Documentation generation' vs 'Create comprehensive docs') and omits necessary structural details. This is not effective conciseness but rather a lack of informative content.

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?

The tool has a relatively rich schema (multiple enum flags, persona, nested evidence) and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about how these elements interact, what the generated docs look like, or what 'comprehensive' means in practice. Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to give a complete picture for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 four parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning (it doesn't mention args, flags, persona, or evidence). Per the calibration, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and this description neither improves nor worsens the semantic understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Documentation generation - Create comprehensive docs'. It uses a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'docs', which is distinct from the sibling tools like sc_build or sc_test. However, it does not specify the types of documentation (API, user, technical, readme) that are suggested by the flags enum, nor does it distinguish itself from other potential doc-related tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (sc_analyze, sc_explain, etc.). It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or scenarios where documentation generation would be appropriate. The phrase 'Create comprehensive docs' implies the purpose but does not provide situational advice or exclusions.

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