cg_create

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Reveals that domain and language are combined with name for widget_id, but does not mention side effects, overwrite behavior, or permissions. Partial but not complete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral nuance, then simplification for blueprints. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers main parameters and their interplay. No output schema, but tool complexity is moderate. Missing details on what files are created could be added, but overall adequate.

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 100% gives baseline 3. Description adds significant value: explains relationship between name, domain, language for widgets, and that blueprints ignore domain/language. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the action 'scaffold' and the resource 'Cartograph widget or blueprint'. Distinguishes between widgets and blueprints, and clarifies slug vs. full widget_id. Differentiates from sibling tools like cg_blueprint.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: name is slug only, not full widget_id; for blueprints only name needed. Implies when not to use (if needing full widget_id). Lacks explicit alternatives but gives solid context.

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