scaffold_cpt_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes generation but does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, permissions required, or any other side effects. For a scaffolding tool, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the generated components. Every piece of information is relevant and there is no 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 the tool generates a multi-component module with 8 parameters, the description is minimal. It lists what is generated but lacks context about the structure or purpose of the ServiceProvider, or what happens if optional components are omitted. It provides a basic understanding but is not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already documented. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a complete Custom Post Type module, listing specific components (CPT registration class, Taxonomy, MetaBox, Admin Columns, ServiceProvider). This differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_posttype or scaffold_meta_box, which generate only individual parts.

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 implies this tool is for generating a comprehensive CPT module, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools like generate_posttype suggests differentiation, but the description lacks direct guidance.

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