scaffold_project

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and "Write" is consistent with that, so no contradiction. But the description never explains the destructive surface — it says nothing about what happens to existing files at `destination`, and `overwrite` (the parameter that governs destruction) is never mentioned despite annotations flagging destructiveness.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the mode list compactly parenthesized. Dense but every clause adds information; only mild readability cost from the nested enumeration.

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?

A 4-parameter, destructive, filesystem-writing tool with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond the flags needs more: the required `destination` semantics, `overwrite` behavior, and what a generated skeleton looks like are all absent.

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 carries full burden. It thoroughly documents `kind` (the enum values and their outputs) but says nothing about `destination` (the one required parameter — a path? a directory?), `name`, or `overwrite`, leaving the most critical input unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Write a project skeleton") and then enumerates the three scaffold kinds with the artifacts each produces, so an agent knows exactly what comes out. It doesn't need to differentiate from any sibling — none of the listed tools scaffold projects — but it also doesn't say so explicitly.

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 when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether destination must be empty, whether a dataset must already exist), and no mention of when 'adapter' or 'pipeline' is the right choice over 'platform'. The agent must infer selection purely from the artifact lists.

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