Scaffold from Template

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

The description discloses overwrite behavior ('Whether to overwrite existing files') and return summary ('created, skipped, and errored files/folders'), which are not in the annotations. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations.

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?

Well-structured with intro, args, returns, and example paragraphs. It is not overly long, though the arg list duplicates schema info.

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?

Covers purpose, templates, return value, and an example, enough for a 4-parameter tool without an output schema. It doesn't address error cases or permission prerequisites, but the annotations and schema fill most gaps.

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 all four parameters; the tool description adds a structured arg list and an example that maps natural language to parameter values, reinforcing template_name and root_dir usage. This adds modest value beyond the 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 clearly states it creates a complete project from a built-in template, enumerates available templates, and includes a concrete example mapping a natural-language request to parameter values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaffold_create_folders and scaffold_create_files.

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?

Provides clear context: use when scaffolding from a built-in template, listing six templates. However, it does not explicitly exclude or contrast with sibling tools such as scaffold_create_project, so guidance on alternatives is missing.

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