cg_create

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important naming behavior: Cartograph combines domain + name + language for widgets, and blueprints use only the name. It does not, however, mention what actually gets created on disk, whether the operation is destructive, or what success/output looks like, so behavioral transparency is only partial.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by resolving a potential misapprehension about slug vs full widget_id and blueprint naming. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description could do more. It covers the main naming behavior and widget vs blueprint distinction, but does not mention that domain/language are required for widgets, what default target behavior is, or what the tool returns/creates. The essentials are present, but some contextual guidance is missing.

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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic nuance beyond the schema by clarifying that 'name' is a slug only, not a full widget_id, and explaining how domain, name, and language combine for widgets. This prevents a real misuse that the schema alone would not protect against.

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 ('Scaffold') and clear resources ('a new Cartograph widget or blueprint'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling cg_blueprint, which may cause mild ambiguity, but the core purpose is specific enough.

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 gives clear context for when to use: when scaffolding a new Cartograph widget or blueprint. It also adds practical guidance about how to specify the name and how blueprints differ. However, it does not mention exclusions or explicitly route to alternatives such as cg_blueprint.

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