generate_notices

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that the tool writes an output file, scans a project directory, resolves relative output paths against the path, and returns the absolute path plus dependency count. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, destructive potential, required project state, or failure modes, leaving meaningful gaps for a file-writing 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and organized with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool's low complexity—two optional parameters and an output schema available—the description covers purpose, arguments, and return value well. It could be more complete about the side effects of writing the output file or the exact nature of the dependency scan, but for an agent selecting and invoking this tool, the essentials are present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'path' is defined as the project directory to scan, and 'output' is defined as the output file with relative path resolution behavior. This adds meaning not present in the bare input schema, although it could offer more detail about output formatting or scanning scope.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Write a THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md attribution document for client hand-off.' It identifies the verb, resource, and purpose, making the tool's role obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings audit_project or check_package, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for client hand-off' gives reasonable context for when the tool might be used, and the description clearly implies a dependency-scanning/writing task. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over audit_project or check_package, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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