contentrain_scaffold

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral context (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries the burden. It adds the key fact that 'Changes are auto-committed to git,' which is a valuable disclosure. However, it does not explain whether existing files are overwritten, what git operations occur, or if the tool is safe to run repeatedly; this gap prevents a higher score.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful template list and a key behavioral note. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

This is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint false) with no output schema, so the description must explain outcomes and side effects. It fails to mention whether the tool is intended for fresh projects, whether it overwrites existing files, or what the resulting project structure looks like. The auto-commit note is helpful but insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description's template list duplicates the schema, adding no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function as 'Template-based project setup' and enumerates the available templates (blog, landing, docs, etc.), which makes the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like contentrain_init by focusing on templates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other setup tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contentrain_init. The description implies usage for project scaffolding but lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., empty directory, existing git repo) or when not to use it.

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