scaffold_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states it generates a scaffold with Docker and tests, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., file system writes), required permissions, reversibility, or return values. This is insufficient for a mutation-oriented tool.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and straightforward, though it under-specifies details that are penalized in other dimensions.

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 annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter info, this description is severely incomplete. It provides only a high-level action without the context needed for safe and correct invocation, especially considering the three 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It does not explain the meaning of 'requirements', 'language', or 'outputDir', nor how they relate to Docker and tests. The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 uses a clear verb ("Generate") and specifies the resource ("project scaffold"), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_docker and add_tests. However, it does not explicitly clarify whether this is for new projects or existing ones, making it not fully distinguishing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_docker or add_tests. It does not indicate prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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