scaffold_plugin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'creates a self-contained plugin file', but does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the file already exists.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and target, followed by a clear elaboration of what the generated file includes. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value (e.g., file path written), error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that interacts with the filesystem, this is insufficient.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, remaining at a general overview level. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool generates a starter plugin template with specific features (custom rules, optional custom judges, lifecycle hooks). It uses a specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'scaffold_judge', which could cause minor confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scaffold_judge. It lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it.

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