scaffold_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies filesystem creation but does not disclose whether an existing project directory is overwritten, whether target_dir defaults to the cwd, if it requires write permissions, or whether the operation is reversible — all critical for a scaffolding/write 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?

A single tightly-packed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists concrete outputs. No filler, 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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only minimally sufficient. It communicates what gets generated but omits overwrite behavior, return value expectations, and the sequencing prerequisite with list_hackathons.

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% with 6 well-documented parameters, so the schema already explains each field's meaning. The description adds no additional semantic detail (e.g., format constraints on hackathon_slug or default for target_dir), so the baseline 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Scaffold') with a specific resource ('complete hackathon project directory') and enumerates the artifacts produced (README, architecture spec, environment config, boilerplate code). It is clearly distinct from the read-only siblings like check_my_status or list_hackathons, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are given. Notably, it doesn't say the agent likely needs a valid hackathon_slug from list_hackathons first, nor whether this should be run before or after brainstorm_ideas.

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