icp_create_frontend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool creates a project; it does not disclose side effects such as filesystem changes, overwriting behavior, prerequisites, or whether it invokes dfx commands. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap, similar to the 'update_drive' calibration example.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. Every word contributes meaning: 'new frontend SPA project' and 'deployment to an asset canister' are all valuable context. No structural issues.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether project files are created locally, or how the project relates to existing canisters. While it mentions the target (asset canister), the overall context is insufficient for a mutation tool without further guidance.

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 100% for the two parameters (base_path and project_name), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as how project_name affects the scaffolded project or the valid format for base_path. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'frontend SPA project' and clarifies the purpose 'for deployment to an asset canister.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_create_canister and icp_deploy_frontend, which handle different stages. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when scaffolding a frontend SPA for an asset canister) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not name sibling tools like icp_create_project or icp_deploy_frontend, leaving some room for ambiguity, but the phrase 'frontend SPA' offers sufficient context for an agent to infer the intended use case.

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