scaffold_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a local Git repo and symlink, which are meaningful side effects, but it does not mention reversible vs. irreversible changes, path conventions, prerequisites, permissions, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation-style 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?

The description is a single declarative sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, making it instantly parseable.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the tool is simple. However, for a scaffold/mutation tool with no annotations, the description still lacks critical behavioral context—side effects, prerequisites, and parameter semantics—making it minimally viable but not complete.

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 0% and the tool description does not explain 'plugin_name' or 'description' beyond their self-explanatory names. It adds no guidance on format, uniqueness, or how these parameters relate to the scaffolding operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies two concrete artifacts ('local Git repository', 'ExileAPI source symlink') plus the target category ('new source-only plugin'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling read/snapshot tools.

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 phrase 'for a new source-only plugin' gives clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the target use case is unambiguous among the listed siblings.

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