scaffold_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a conditional asset install ('if needed') and a file write, but does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or what the HTML file contains. This is basic but lacks comprehensive side-effect disclosure.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the main actions. No redundancy, no filler, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and performs file system mutations, but the description does not mention overwrite behavior, what the demo HTML includes, or any return values. While schema fields are well documented, the side effects and usage context are only partially complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including defaults for targetDir and outputFile and the full enum for scenario. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource action: install RollDate assets and write a demo HTML file. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like install_assets (which only installs assets) and get_snippet (which likely returns code snippets).

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 implies usage when you need a scaffolded demo, and the conditional 'if needed' hints that this tool can also handle asset installation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool in favor of siblings like install_assets or get_snippet, so guidance remains implicit.

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