vitest_scaffold_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and partially succeeds: it discloses the core effects—creating two files and adding a script—and 'deterministically' signals predictable output. However, it does not state whether existing files are overwritten, whether package.json must already exist, or other side effects.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and lists concrete outputs. No filler, no repetition, 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 mutating scaffold tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It omits lifecycle context (e.g., run after vitest_classify_package), behavior on pre-existing files, and what a successful invocation returns or changes beyond the stated artifacts.

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%, with both packagePath and tier described inline. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('generates') and names the exact artifacts: vitest.config.browser.mjs, test/setup.ts, and the package.json test:vitest:browser script. This makes the tool's function unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vitest_apply_ast_codemods.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, pipeline ordering, or circumstances where a different tool (e.g., vitest_apply_ast_codemods) should be used instead.

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