electron_scaffold_project

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

The description lists the generated components in detail, providing good behavioral context beyond annotations. However, the annotation readOnlyHint: true contradicts the write operation described ('Generate'), creating potential confusion. The description itself is clear.

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 three sentences, efficiently conveying purpose, components, and output readiness. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 scaffolding tool, the description covers the key aspects of what is generated. It lacks details on overwrite behavior or exact output location, but given idempotentHint and typical use, it's sufficient. No output schema, but the output is described as a full project structure.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description mentions framework integration and build tooling in general but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema definitions. 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 it generates a complete Electron project scaffold, specifying included components (process separation, TypeScript, framework, build tooling, security defaults, IPC channels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate individual components or perform audits.

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 new project scaffolding but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for adding features to existing projects). While context suggests it's for initial setup, explicit exclusion of alternatives would improve clarity.

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