Scaffold a project

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

The annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: 'Never overwrites existing files' is a meaningful safety guarantee, and the manifest contents (version 0.1.0, author from git config, publishConfig for scoped npm) disclose concrete side effects. It stops short of stating failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the dir doesn't exist or a partial scaffold occurs), which keeps it from 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?

Two dense sentences; the artifact list is front-loaded ahead of the conditional workflow behavior and the non-overwrite guarantee. No filler, every clause conveys actionable information.

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 an 8-param creation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers what is produced and the key safety property. Gaps remain around return value, failure modes, and whether the target directory must pre-exist, but nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the repoUrl-to-workflows trigger, which largely duplicates the schema's own default for 'workflows', and adds only marginal non-schema meaning (author from git config, scoped-npm publishConfig).

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?

States a specific verb (create/scaffold) and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (source, tests, README, LICENSE, CHANGELOG, .gitignore, .gitattributes, manifest) with concrete defaults. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_github_repo, add_workflows, and publish_package without needing to open any 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 by the artifact list: this is for bootstrapping a fresh project. The conditional 'Adds CI and release workflows when repoUrl is set' gives some behavioral context, but no when-to-use/ when-not guidance is offered, and the relationship to the sibling add_workflows (which also manipulates workflows) is not disambiguated.

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