scaffold_project_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a file write operation but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files, creating directories, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a tool that writes to the filesystem.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and provides a direct usage instruction, making it easy to parse.

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 file-writing tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., existing project/screen), or edge cases like existing file handling. The simplicity of the parameters doesn't fully excuse this omission.

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%, and each parameter has a description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only clarifying that filePath is for saving UI designs. Since the schema already documents parameter meanings, 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 clearly states the tool maps a specific screen to a local file path and is used to save UI designs into the user's workspace. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_screen or get_screen_code, which focus on creation or retrieval rather than file-scaffolding. However, it could be more explicit about the generated HTML artifact.

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 a clear context: use this tool to save UI designs directly into the user's workspace. It does not enumerate exclusions or explicitly compare against alternatives, but the use case is unambiguous and sufficient for typical selection.

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