copalibre_module_scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no API token is required, that the output is a tagged local Git repository (a filesystem side effect), and that content is seeded from valid catalogue documents rather than guessed. It omits overwrite behavior when output_directory or alias already exists, which is the main remaining gap for a generator 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the two sentences stay on task with no filler. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical asides (segments/events/statistics, stages/points/tiebreak), which adds length but earns most of it by clarifying the seeded output.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it covers the artifact and auth well. However, for a 7-parameter generator it should explain at least how alias and output_directory affect the created repository, which it entirely omits.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains the content differences between the two 'kind' enum values (discipline vs tournament-profile), but name, alias, author, licence, source_url, and output_directory are never mentioned, leaving most parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Generates a structurally-valid discipline or tournament-profile module package ... as a tagged local Git repository'), and the seeding mechanism (from CopaLibre's own catalogue documents) clearly separates it from siblings like copalibre_module_add or copalibre_module_list. An agent can identify the tool from the first sentence alone.

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?

'Use this first when authoring a new module' gives an explicit ordering cue in the authoring workflow, and 'ready to edit, validate, and submit' outlines the downstream stages. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools (e.g. copalibre_module_validate_local, copalibre_module_submit) that follow, so alternatives are implied rather than stated.

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