replication_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool returns a template repo link, scaffold contents, workflow steps, repo-name suggestions, availability checks, a quickstart command, and a handoff file. It also transparently notes that `gh repo create` copies a blank template, so the handoff is necessary—no surprising side effects are hidden.

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 long single paragraph, but nearly every sentence adds useful information about behavior, outputs, or parameter effects. It front-loads the core purpose and sibling distinction, then expands into workflow and parameter semantics. A bulleted structure would improve scannability, but the density is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 is comprehensive: it covers the tool's role in the larger loop, what it returns, how to use optional parameters, the end-to-end replication workflow, and why the handoff is necessary. It also supplies the template repo URL and names the nanopublication chain components. Given the absence of an output schema, this description sufficiently equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does explain doi/topic as name-suggestion inputs, owner as the GitHub org/user for availability checks, and dataset/software as inputs that trigger a handoff. It misses small format details (e.g., DOI syntax or whether software is a name or URL), but overall it adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 states the tool provides the FORRT replication template, scaffold details, and end-to-end workflow for producing a replication nanopublication chain. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling discovery tools ('radar / replication_status / find_independent_software only DISCOVER') and says when to call it ('whenever the user wants to start, scaffold, or set up a replication').

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this whenever the user wants to start, scaffold, or set up a replication, or asks for "the FORRT replication template".' It also distinguishes this tool from sibling discovery tools and explains the context of the 'produce' half of the loop. It further describes how to adapt usage based on optional inputs like doi/topic, owner, and dataset/software.

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