Generate docs for several files

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that each file consumes one generation from the account's monthly allowance — a quota/cost trait not present in the annotations.

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, both front-loaded, with no filler: the capability and its limit come first, the quota consequence second.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what comes back for a batch (e.g. per-file results, ordering, or partial-failure behavior), and it does not. Quota and cap are covered, but the return shape and failure semantics are missing.

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% and there is only one top-level parameter, so the schema already documents files, code, context, and filename. The description's 'up to 20 files' merely restates the schema's maxItems: 20 rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 and resource ('Generate markdown documentation for multiple code files in one request') and the batch scope plus 20-file cap make it distinguishable from the single-file sibling generate_docs, even though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 'in one request' implies the batch use case versus the single-file sibling, and the 20-file cap is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to generate_docs for single files.

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