Generate docs for a file

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds a quota-consumption behavior not derivable from annotations: each call spends one of the account's monthly generations. It stops short of stating auth needs or what happens on failure.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the cost caveat immediately after. Nothing extraneous.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description makes clear the return is markdown documentation, and it covers the quota side effect. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could mention whether the markdown is returned inline or written somewhere.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (code, context, filename) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond noting the subject is a single file, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate), resource (markdown documentation), and scope (a single code file), which implicitly distinguishes it from the batch sibling. It does not name generate_docs_batch explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast from the word 'single'.

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 quota note ('Uses one generation from the account's monthly allowance') gives a real cost consideration for choosing this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to generate_docs_batch for multi-file work.

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