as_project_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: it generates files, requires 'confirm' to write to disk, and optionally opens in Android Studio. This goes beyond annotations to explain the tool's effects and prerequisites.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes key details on generated files, arguments, and return value without extraneous information. Minor improvement could be restructuring for even quicker scanning.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and detailed input schema, the description covers essential context: the project generation process, required parameters, and return structure. It also mentions the confirmation flag and option to open in Studio, making it sufficiently 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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the description's parameter list adds no new semantics. The description correctly mentions the return format, but parameter documentation is adequately handled by the schema.

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 scaffolds a new Android project, specifying generated files and optional opening in Android Studio. The verb 'scaffold' and resource 'Android project' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like as_open_project or as_gradle_assemble.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like as_open_project or as_project_validate. The context of creating a new project is implied but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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