scaffold_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait (implementation is sourced from behavioral specs, never decompiled bodies), but omits whether scaffolding overwrites existing files, whether it is idempotent, or what prerequisites the workspace must meet. Useful but incomplete for a file-generating tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and artifact list, followed by a compact note on the exports parameter and the sourcing rule. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 tool that generates a multi-file component with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameters (kind, workspace, behavior_note) undefined and says nothing about preconditions or overwrite semantics. The output schema covers return values, but the input side remains substantially underspecified.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only 'exports' ('comma-separated export names from the API surface') and leaves kind, name, workspace, and behavior_note entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scaffold') plus a specific resource ('ReactOS-style component') and then enumerates the exact artifacts produced (CMakeLists.txt, .spec export table, .c with DllMain, README, API test file). That artifact list is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings like gen_api_stub or gen_compat_layer without opening any schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings (gen_api_stub, gen_compat_layer, build_plan). The one directive present — that implementation comes from spec/ and never from decompiled bodies — is a provenance constraint on output, not a when-to-use/alternative-selection rule.

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