scaffold_base_app_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does signal a mutation ("menuliskan file konfigurasi") and names the affected files, but says nothing about defaults that matter operationally — that overwrite defaults to false and dry_run produces a preview — nor about idempotency, permissions, or what happens to existing files. The word "Alias" also leaves the agent unsure whether this is a deprecated shim.

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, and the artifact list is the most useful part of it. The bracketed "[Alias Kompatibilitas]" tag consumes attention without earning it, since its meaning is never resolved.

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 nine-parameter, nine-field mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the alias/deprecation semantics relative to scaffold_apple_app_template and does not describe the resulting file layout or return value, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 all nine parameters are already self-documented; baseline is 3. The description adds mild context by naming the output files (tokens.css ties to accent_color/palette_mode/design_era, tauri.conf.json ties to identifier/app_name/platforms) but supplies no additional format or validation semantics beyond the schema.

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 a concrete action (generating starter structure / writing config files) and enumerates the specific artifacts (tauri.conf.json, tokens.css, AppShell starter) plus the target project type (desktop/mobile). It is specific enough to distinguish from component-level scaffolds, but the "[Alias Kompatibilitas]" prefix is never explained, so an agent cannot tell whether this duplicates or supersedes the sibling scaffold_apple_app_template.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over scaffold_apple_app_template or scaffold_apple_component, despite an obvious alias relationship implied by the title tag. The only usage hint is the implied "new project" context, with no prerequisites, exclusions, or ordering relative to the audit_* tools.

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