Add GitHub workflows

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: existing files are preserved unless overwrite is true, the release job is skipped if the version already exists, and publishing uses trusted publishing via OIDC. These are real operational details an agent needs. It stops short of stating whether changes are committed or what the response contains, so not a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary artifact and conditions, then appends the optional artifact and the overwrite caveat. Despite its length, every clause conveys distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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 file-generating tool with no output schema, the description covers what is written, the trigger conditions, and the preservation semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is whether it also stages/commits the new files (a sibling git_commit exists) or what the result looks like on partial failure.

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 75%, so the schema already documents dir, release, and registry. The description adds genuine meaning for overwrite (existing files kept unless true) and clarifies the release.yml trigger condition, but says nothing about dir or the registry enum values beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the parameter burden.

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 names the exact artifacts it writes (.github/workflows/ci.yml and optional release.yml) and enumerates their contents (install, lint, build, test; tag-triggered release with OIDC publishing). This is a specific verb+resource statement that an agent can distinguish from siblings like create_github_repo, publish_package, or setup_trusted_publishing without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for scaffolding CI/release workflows in a project, and the description clarifies when release.yml is or isn't produced (release option, existing version). However, it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one (e.g., versus scaffold_project or preflight), leaving routing to inference.

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