scaffold_project

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 states the action but does not disclose whether files are overwritten, whether the target directory must be empty, or any additional side effects. 'Scaffold' implies file creation, but key behavioral traits are omitted.

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 with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a mutation-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to explain more about the effects. It does not mention overwrite behavior, whether the target directory must exist or be empty, or how boilerplate names map to actual templates. The sibling tools help but are not referenced.

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 coverage is 100% because both parameters have descriptions ('Target directory path' and 'Boilerplate name'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('scaffold') and resource ('boilerplate') with a clear destination ('target directory'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_boilerplates, get_boilerplate, and search_boilerplates, which are read-oriented actions.

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 usage for generating a project from a boilerplate, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The presence of sibling tools suggests context, but the description itself does not state them.

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