electron_scaffold_ipc_channel

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

The description states the tool produces files, which is a generative operation. However, annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which contradicts the description's implication of creating files. Per scoring rules, a contradiction with annotations results in a score of 1.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first sentence lists what is generated, second adds the goal of secure, type-safe IPC.

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?

Explains the output files and mentions type safety. Lacks detail on idempotency or file collision behavior, but given annotations and schema coverage, it is mostly complete for a boilerplate generator.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only mentions the overall output. No extra value for parameter semantics.

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 it generates complete IPC boilerplate for a new feature, listing specific files: ipcMain handler, preload bridge, TypeScript declarations, and renderer example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like electron_generate_preload_bridge.

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 it should be used for generating IPC boilerplate for new features, suggesting comprehensiveness. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling list includes a narrower tool (electron_generate_preload_bridge), so the scope is clear.

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