Scaffold tool generator

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

The description explicitly states it operates on the local filesystem without TouchDesigner bridge calls, and notes it returns an integration hint. While annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, the description adds concrete behavioral context beyond annotations, though it could mention potential file overwriting (handled via parameter).

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, using two sentences to convey purpose, behavior, and constraints. It front-loads key information and avoids redundancy, each phrase earning 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (integration-hint) and its local filesystem nature. It covers all necessary contextual aspects for an agent to understand the tool's role in scaffolding.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The description adds marginal value by referring to a 'one-line idea' for the description parameter, but overall it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 identifies the tool as a meta-development tool that scaffolds a new tdmcp tool file and corresponding unit test from a one-line idea. It explicitly mentions the outputs (xSchema + xImpl + registerX and integration-hint), distinguishing it from sibling scaffold tools that focus on other artifacts.

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 states it is a 'Meta DX tool' and clarifies that it involves 'No TouchDesigner bridge call — pure local filesystem generator,' helping agents understand it is for local file generation only. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling scaffold tools like scaffold_recipe_template or scaffold_extension, leaving partial ambiguity.

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