scaffold_ajax_handler

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists outputs (PHP handler, JS caller, ServiceProvider) but does not state whether files are overwritten, whether any project structure is assumed, or if there are side effects. The behavioral aspects beyond the output are missing.

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 that lists key components. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more structure (e.g., listing steps or bullet points) could improve readability without adding bulk.

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 schema coverage (100%), no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately states what is generated but lacks context about behavioral assumptions (e.g., file locations, overwrite behavior, project requirements). It is minimally complete but has gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'WordPress AJAX handler' and lists specific components (nonce verification, capability check, PHP handler class, JS caller, ServiceProvider registration). It distinguishes from siblings that generate other WordPress components but does not explicitly differentiate from other scaffold tools like scaffold_cpt_module.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing plugin structure), context, or when not to use it. There is no referral to sibling tools.

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