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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. Side effects such as dry-run vs. write behavior, overwrite semantics, and permission/path requirements are only discoverable from the schema, not the description. For a mutation-capable generator this is a serious 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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; the single fragment restates the name without front-loading any useful information. Nothing about the operation is conveyed.

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?

For a four-parameter code-generating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent would have to infer the tool's role entirely from the name and schema, and any precondition or safety context is absent.

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 all four parameters (apply, outputDir, overwrite, projectRoot) are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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 is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name: 'app.scaffold (scaffold)'. It never states what scaffolding does, what gets generated, or how it differs from sibling tools like feature.map or integration.plan. Only the namespace prefix hints at the resource.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent cannot tell from this text whether to run scaffold before or after env.preflight, or how it relates to room.bootstrap or integration.plan.

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