Scaffold recipe template

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

The description indicates it writes a template, consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not explain what 'minimal valid' means or whether existing files are overwritten. The description adds little beyond the annotations.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly brief given the tool's complexity. It could be restructured to include essential parameter guidance without becoming bloated.

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?

With 4 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a recipe JSON template is or how to use the parameters, leaving critical gaps.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (out_file, id, name, overwrite). It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent guessing their meaning.

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 writes a minimal valid recipe JSON template. This distinguishes it from sibling scaffolding tools that target extensions, genres, or shows, providing a specific verb-object pair.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scaffold_recipe_from_network or other scaffolding tools. The context for selection is entirely implied by the name.

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