omni_mod_scaffold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: output is a folder rather than a ZIP, zipping is the caller's responsibility before omni_mod_add, and a folder-staging alternative exists. The statement that every JSON key written is one the engine reads also sets expectations about the scaffold's fidelity. It could mention error behavior or overwrite semantics, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action, then gives the critical output-format caveat and workflow context, and closes with a useful guarantee about JSON keys.

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?

The tool is complex, with a large nested spec schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essential workflow and output format, but it does not address the supported mod loaders implied by the schema, potential validation failures, or how to construct the spec correctly beyond the schema itself. The mention of scaffold.ts comments is not directly actionable from the description alone.

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 50%: outDir has a description, but the large nested spec object has none. The description does not explain the individual spec fields, though the schema's property names and types are mostly self-descriptive. The note that every JSON key written is read by the engine adds confidence but does not compensate for the lack of guidance on complex nested structures like guis, recipes, or extraAssets.

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 explicitly states the tool writes a mod folder to disk and identifies the specific output type (folder, not ZIP). It also differentiates from omni_mod_add by describing the required workflow: zip it yourself before omni_mod_add or stage via the folder mod path.

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 gives clear usage context by explaining what happens after scaffolding: zip it before omni_mod_add or use the folder mod path on the engine side. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools beyond omni_mod_add, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to sequence the tool correctly.

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