cli_generate_scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the scaffold includes, but does not state whether it writes files to disk, overwrites existing paths, prompts interactively, or requires an external service. The api_key parameter is unexplained in the description, making the behavior incomplete and potentially surprising.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with useful specifics. No redundant words or filler.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not disclose important invocation context such as side effects, preconditions, or the role of the api_key parameter. An agent would need to infer or probe to know if files are written, whether the api_key is optional or required for external calls, and what a successful result looks like.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the enum and types. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the specific verb 'Generate' with a clear resource: 'a CLI application scaffold', and elaborates with concrete deliverables: argument parsing, configuration, and project structure. This distinguishes it from other scaffolding tools that target web apps or generic projects, like scaffold_go_project or scaffold_express_project.

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 implies this tool is used for creating new CLI application scaffolds, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like cli_add_commands, cli_add_help, or scaffold_go_project. There is no conditional guidance or named alternatives, so the usage context is only implied.

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