Create OpMode from template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that certain templates have prerequisites (install_pedro) and mentions hardware naming for mecanum. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., file creation beyond writing), error handling, or permissions. The description is partially transparent but leaves gaps.

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 compact: a single-sentence purpose followed by a bullet list of templates. Every sentence is informative, and the structure front-loads the main action. No filler or redundancy.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description could better explain return values (e.g., what dryRun returns) or default behavior for parameters like 'projectPath'. The template details are thorough, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining the 'template' enum with detailed usage notes (e.g., hardware names for mecanum, dependency for Pedro). For the other parameters, it adds little beyond the schema, but the template coverage is strong.

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 specific verb 'scaffold' and names the resource 'Java OpMode'. It clearly distinguishes between five templates, each with a distinct purpose (e.g., 'mecanum-teleop' is for mecanum drive TeleOp). This differentiates from sibling tools like create_teleop or create_subsystem.

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 provides context for each template, such as 'requires install_pedro first' for Pedro-based templates. It implies when to use each, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like create_teleop. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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