Edtb Epf Scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explicitly stating that the tool creates files, registers the object in Configuration.mdo, performs a resync, and supports a dryRun mode to return a plan without applying changes. It stops short of describing overwrite or idempotency behavior, but the main side effects are clearly exposed.

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 appropriately sized for a complex scaffold operation and is well structured: purpose, concrete effects, parameters, and return value. Every section adds necessary information, and the first line is a crisp summary of the tool's purpose.

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 no-annotation tool with five parameters and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is substantially complete: it names target paths, generated files, configuration registration, dryRun behavior, and return fields. It could add edge-case expectations such as behavior when the object already exists, but nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly is 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully does. It explains all five parameters: name, kind with the two exact allowed values, withBspModules, projectPath including the EDTB_PROJECT_PATH fallback, and dryRun. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Сгенерировать каркас внешней обработки/отчёта' and then enumerates the exact artifacts created and where. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like edtb_form_compile, edtb_mxl_decompile, and edtb_cf_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 intended use case is clear from the description: create a scaffold for a new external data processor or report. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as edtb_plan_mutations or edtb_apply_mutations, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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