scaffold_macos_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It says code is 'produksi' (production-grade) but never states where files are written, whether existing files are overwritten, whether a project must already exist, or whether the call is idempotent. For a scaffolding/write tool that is a significant gap.

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 alias marker and then the core action. No filler, though the alias tag is cryptic without explanation of what it aliases.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented enum schema and no output schema, the description covers what is generated (component code and platform). It is missing side-effect information (file paths, overwrite behavior) that matters for a scaffold generator with zero annotation coverage.

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% with both parameters enum-constrained and individually documented, so the schema does the semantic work. The description adds only the notion that platform is optional context, which the schema already conveys. 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?

States a specific verb and artifact: 'Menghasilkan kode komponen React + TypeScript' styled per Apple HIG, with the three platform families named. The stack and design-system scope are clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling scaffold_apple_component, and the name's 'macos' scoping conflicts slightly with the description's macos/ipados/ios coverage.

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 '[Alias Kompatibilitas]' prefix hints this is a compatibility alias, but the description never explicitly says 'use this instead of scaffold_apple_component' or explains when one should be chosen over the other. No prerequisites, no when-not guidance, no mention of the other scaffolding siblings.

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