Plan documentation set

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, but does not explain any internal behavior, side effects, or limitations (e.g., whether it performs any external calls or requires specific input formats).

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and object. However, it could be slightly improved by including key qualifiers upfront.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, but the description omits any information about what the output will be (e.g., a list of documentation topics) and does not guide the user on how to supply effective inputs. The brevity leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool confidently.

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?

With 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any parameters beyond the one implied by 'from a project summary.' No details on audience, userGoals, constraints, or publicInterfaces are provided, failing to add value over the raw 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 suggests an initial Diataxis-aligned documentation set from a project summary. The verb 'suggest' and resource 'documentation set' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'suggest_doc_refactor' which focuses on refactoring.

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 such as 'classify_doc_request' or 'suggest_doc_refactor'. It lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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