gsd_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create templates' without mentioning side effects, whether existing files are overwritten, directory creation, or any prerequisites. For a scaffold tool that creates files, this significant gap in understanding what actually happens is not addressed.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 good schema coverage, the description lacks any behavioral or workflow context. It doesn't explain what the generated templates look like, what the output is, or how this fits into the GSD process. For a tool that creates files, this is under-specified, especially with no output schema to fill the gap.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (name, type, phase) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. The listed template types in the description duplicate the enum values in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'GSD document templates' and explicitly lists the four template types (context, uat, verification, phase-dir). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_run or gsd_validate, which perform different actions. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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, no exclusions, and no context about the workflow. It simply states the action without helping the agent decide between gsd_scaffold and other GSD tools. This is a clear case of no usage guidance.

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