electron_scaffold_ipc_channel

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

The description claims the tool produces files, which is a write operation, but annotations specify readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. No behavioral details beyond the output are provided, and the contradiction severely undermines transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and outputs, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

While the description covers generated files well, it omits the return value or success indication, and the annotation contradiction creates uncertainty about the tool's actual behavior. No output schema exists to fill this gap.

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 each parameter described in the schema. The description adds no additional information about parameters, so 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 complete IPC boilerplate, specifying exactly what is produced: ipcMain handler, preload bridge, TypeScript types, and renderer example. This distinguishes it from siblings like electron_generate_preload_bridge which only generates the 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 usage for new IPC channels but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like electron_generate_preload_bridge. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, relying on implicit understanding.

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