scaffold_apple_component

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 says code is 'produced' but not whether it is written to disk, returned as a string, or whether existing files are overwritten — a critical distinction for a scaffold tool. Permissions, prerequisites, and side effects are entirely unaddressed.

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 with no filler; the platform scope and the concrete component examples both earn their place. The long parenthetical list is slightly heavy but serves as useful orientation to the enum's contents.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no nesting), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate the shape of the result — generated code returned inline vs. files created. That gap leaves an agent unable to predict the outcome of a call.

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 both parameters enumerated and described, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's parenthetical list of component names loosely mirrors the component enum but adds no selection guidance or defaults beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Menghasilkan kode komponen React + TypeScript' styled per Apple HIG, scoped to macOS/iPadOS/iOS, and names concrete component examples (Traffic Lights, Command Palette, Liquid Glass Tab Bar). It does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling scaffold_macos_component, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: 'you want an Apple HIG component' selects this tool. No when-not guidance and no explicit routing against scaffold_macos_component, scaffold_apple_app_template, or get_design_tokens, all of which could plausibly be chosen for a similar request. The multi-platform scope hints at the distinction from the macOS-only sibling but never states it.

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