Scaffold a local development workspace for a Gibwork bounty, adding a PR template, checklist, and metadata to organize your deliverable.
Scaffold a local development directory with PR template, checklist, and metadata for a Gibwork bounty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | The Gibwork task ID to scaffold. | |
| outputDir | No | Target directory (defaults to ./bounty_workspaces). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a filesystem-creating operation, but does not disclose whether existing directories are overwritten, whether outputDir is auto-created, or whether remote data is fetched before scaffolding. For a side-effecting tool this is a meaningful gap.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded verb, and no filler. It lists the key artifacts without redundancy, making the purpose immediately scannable.
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 covers the what but not the operational context: no return/output description, no mention of overwrite or prerequisite behavior, and no guidance on outputDir semantics. Adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, but with gaps around side effects.
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 100%, so taskId and outputDir are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 resource: 'Scaffold a local development directory' with concrete deliverables (PR template, checklist, metadata). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling listing/detail/escrow operations.
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?
Usage context is implied: this is the workspace-creation step for a Gibwork bounty, not a list/detail/verify operation. However, there is no explicit 'use when' guidance, no exclusions, and no ordering context relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.