st.plugin.scaffold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the operation type (creates a skeleton), the outcome (loadable plugin), and a meaningful safety precondition (confirm must be true). However, it does not disclose important side effects such as where files are written, whether existing files get overwritten, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second states the critical precondition. The essential information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, two sentences are insufficient. The description omits what the tool returns (e.g., path to the scaffolded skeleton), filesystem side effects, and the role of the optional name/description parameters. The confirm:true note is valuable but does not make the definition complete.

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%, yet the description meaningfully explains the most behavior-critical parameter: confirm must be true for the tool to proceed. The other parameters (id, name, description) have semantically transparent names and minimal schema constraints, but no additional meaning or format guidance is given beyond their labels, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Create') and a specific resource ('loadable SillyTavern server plugin skeleton'), making the tool's function immediately clear. 'Skeleton' clearly distinguishes it from related plugin siblings like st.plugin.install (installing an existing plugin), st.plugin.configure (configuring one), and st.plugin.registry (listing them).

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is for generating a new plugin skeleton from scratch, which a competent agent can infer from the name and purpose statement. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like st.plugin.install or st.plugin.configure, and the only guidance offered ('Requires confirm: true') is an operational constraint rather than a selection criterion.

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