Preview MERN Scaffold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description says 'Preview' which suggests a read-only operation, but the input schema includes a 'mode' parameter with 'preview' and 'apply' values, indicating this tool can also apply changes. The description is misleading as it claims only preview but the tool supports apply. This is a behavioral gap and borderline contradiction with the schema (not 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse. It front-loads the verb and resource. It doesn't waste words. However, it omits crucial details about the mode parameter, which would have been valuable, but conciseness itself is good.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, an apply mode that causes mutations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent needs to know when to use apply vs preview, what the preview output looks like, and how conflictStrategy works. The description only covers a fraction of the complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It doesn't clarify what 'previewHash' is, what 'conflictStrategy' does, or what 'overrides' affect. The baseline for 0% coverage is low, and the description adds nothing. Score 3 is generous; it could be 2, but the tool purpose is simple enough that resourceName is self-explanatory.

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 ('Preview') and resource ('generated files and integration edits for a MERN resource scaffold'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like scaffold_resource (which likely creates), but doesn't explicitly contrast with it. The term 'preview' implies no side effects, which is clear enough.

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 name 'preview_scaffold' and description imply this is for reviewing changes before applying them, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus scaffold_resource or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions. The description implies usage but leaves the decision to the agent inference.

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