electron_scaffold_project

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true contradicts the description's implication that the tool creates files (a write operation). The description does not clarify behavioral traits beyond annotations, and the contradiction is a serious flaw.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with key attributes. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing features).

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the scaffold produces (e.g., directory structure). It vaguely says 'full project structure ready to develop' but lacks specifics on output location or prerequisites.

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 having a clear description and enums where applicable. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a complete Electron project scaffold with specific attributes (process separation, TypeScript, framework, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like electron_scaffold_ipc_channel, which focuses on a single IPC channel, and others.

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 use for starting a new Electron project but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like electron_scaffold_ipc_channel or electron_generate_preload_bridge. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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