packkit_scaffold

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

Discloses file placement, optional side effects (git init, dependency install, GitHub repo creation), and the failure/skip behavior for existing directories. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and handles it well, though it omits GitHub auth requirements (which appear in schema).

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?

Four sentences, each informative: purpose, file path/effects, schema prerequisite, and merge guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence 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 9-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: where files go, optional actions, the schema precondition, and the merge edge case. It does not describe return values or detailed error handling, but those are less critical and the schema covers parameters.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the directory/name relationship and merge semantics, but these are largely covered in the schema. No substantial per-parameter insight beyond 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?

States the core action clearly: "Generate a project to disk." and specifies output location and optional side effects (git init, install, GitHub repo). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like packkit_schema (which provides presets) and packkit_preview (likely a dry-run).

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?

Explicitly instructs to call packkit_schema first, with a rationale ("picking the preset by guess is how projects end up the wrong shape"). Also provides specific guidance for non-empty directories: pass merge: true rather than failing. This is strong when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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