aide_scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: naming rules, auto-renaming of existing .aide files when creating research.aide, and the specific purpose of each type. It could mention potential side effects like overwriting, but the information is sufficient.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear main sentence followed by bullet points for types. Every sentence contributes meaning without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, naming conventions, type meanings, and usage context. An agent can correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by detailing each type's purpose and naming interactions, which helps the agent decide values for the 'type' parameter.

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 clearly states the tool creates .aide spec files and enforces naming conventions. It explains the types and interactions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like aide_read or aide_validate, which are for different purposes.

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 description provides clear context for each type (intent, research, etc.) and when to use them, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. The sibling tools cover other operations, making usage relatively clear.

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