scaffold_django_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Generate a Django project' implies file-system creation, but it does not specify overwrite behavior, where files are written, required API key usage, or any side effects. The 'production-ready settings structure' claim is asserted without explaining what that entails.

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 sentence states the action and a key qualifier with no filler. It is appropriately short, though 'production-ready settings structure' is somewhat vague and could carry more precise detail without bloating the description.

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 scaffold tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the generation context, whether api_key is required for the scaffold service, what output the agent should expect, or the implications of api_only and django_version. The agent has to inspect the schema to understand the tool's full purpose.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents project_name, api_key, api_only, and django_version adequately. No additional meaning is needed for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a Django project with production-ready settings structure.' It is clear this tool scaffolds a full Django project rather than a single app or config file, which distinguishes it from siblings like generate_django_app and generate_django_settings, though it doesn't name them.

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 provided about when to choose this tool over generate_django_app, generate_django_settings, or the many other scaffold_* siblings. There are no stated alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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