Generate an addon skeleton

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the generated artifacts (event-dispatch Core.lua, SavedVariables handling, slash command, optional XML/mixin and Settings-API panel) and frames the tool as a skeleton generator. It doesn't explicitly state write-side-effect behavior, but the schema's 'write' parameter handles that, so the description adds substantial context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences: the first is a compact, front-loaded enumeration of what is generated, and the second is a crisp usage directive. No filler or redundancy; every phrase conveys necessary information.

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 description provides a strong overview of the generated skeleton's structure and components, which is the core context. However, it omits the return format when 'write' is false and doesn't mention prerequisites like folder configuration; with no output schema, these details would be useful. Slight deduction for that gap.

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 70%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning to multiple parameters: 'chosen clients' links to flavors, 'SavedVariables handling' to savedVariables, 'slash command' to slashCommand, 'XML frame template with its Lua mixin' to withFrame, and 'Settings-API options panel' to withOptions. This enriches the brief schema descriptions beyond their literal definitions.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('addon skeleton'), listing all included components (.toc manifests, Core.lua, SavedVariables handling, slash command, optional XML/mixin and Settings-API panel). This distinguishes it unambiguously from sibling tools that focus on API search, file reading, or validation.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to start a new addon rather than writing boilerplate by hand,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling tool serves as a direct alternative for scaffolding, so exclusions are implicit.

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