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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. Whether files are written, what a dry-run means without 'apply', permission requirements, or reversibility are all left undocumented despite being a mutating scaffold operation.

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 that is under-specification rather than conciseness; the one line present is wasted on repeating the tool identifier. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool actually does.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the scaffold purpose, the dry-run default behavior, and when it applies to a project. None of that is 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 100%, and the parameters (apply, outputDir, overwrite, projectRoot) are each well documented in the schema itself. The description contributes zero additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a namespace-prefixed restatement of the tool name: 'mediasfu-shared :: app.scaffold (scaffold).' It supplies no verb, resource, or outcome beyond what the identifier already says, and gives no basis for distinguishing it from sibling tools like android::app.scaffold or shared::room.bootstrap.

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, prerequisite, or alternative guidance anywhere in the text. The 100+ sibling tools listed make routing ambiguous, and the description does nothing to resolve it.

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