Generates a guarded PS2SDK project scaffold from a project name and output directory, optionally applying the scaffold to start PS2 development.
Alias with an explicit pipeline name for generating the guarded PS2SDK project scaffold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apply | No | ||
| outputDir | Yes | ||
| projectName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Guarded' implies safety constraints but never says what is guarded (dry-run by default? overwrite protection? path validation?), whether files are written to disk, or what permissions are needed. For a scaffold-generating (likely write) operation this 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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted clauses, which is good. However the front-loaded phrase 'Alias with an explicit pipeline name' spends the most prominent position on naming trivia rather than on what the tool produces.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation mean the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it supplies almost none. For a tool that generates a project scaffold on disk, it should at minimum describe the apply/dry-run behavior and the resulting directory layout.
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 0% across three parameters, and the description explains none of them. In particular the 'apply' boolean is undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent to guess whether it toggles dry-run versus actual writes; only the vague word 'guarded' gestures at that semantics.
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 verb+resource ('generating the guarded PS2SDK project scaffold'), but frames the tool as an 'alias' without saying what it aliases (presumably the sibling generate_ps2_project) or how the two differ. An agent can guess the general domain but cannot tell why this alias exists or when its behavior diverges from the non-aliased tool.
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 when-to-use guidance is given, and the obvious alternative, generate_ps2_project, is never mentioned despite being a sibling. 'Explicit pipeline name' hints at a pipeline-oriented use case but does not state the condition that should select this tool over its sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.