scaffold_go_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a directory structure is generated, omitting key side effects: whether files are written to the current directory, whether existing files are overwritten, whether network access or the api_key is required, and how project_type changes the output.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is efficiently concise, though it sacrifices valuable contextual details; conciseness itself is not the issue.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide agent-facing context, but it does not. It misses expected output structure, filesystem side effects, and the role of api_key. Given three parameters and multiple sibling scaffolding tools, this is an incomplete definition for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (module_path, api_key, project_type) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning, such as how project_type alters the generated layout or when api_key is actually needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: generate a Go project directory structure using standard layout conventions. This distinguishes it from other scaffold_* tools targeting different languages, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with generate_go_module or init_generate_scaffold.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or when to prefer a sibling like generate_go_module. The only implicit context is the Go-specific scope, which is not enough to choose confidently among many scaffold/generate tools.

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