scaffold_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what is generated but omits behavioral details like whether it writes files to disk, overwrites existing files, or requires any permissions/dependencies. For a code-generation tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence lists outputs, the second adds key auto-detection behavior. Every word serves a purpose.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain file placement, overwrite behavior, or how structured inputs like 'properties' map to generated code. More context would help an agent invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning auto-detection for baseClass. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool generates a 'complete Helix-pattern web component scaffold' and enumerates specific outputs (Lit class, CEM annotations, test stub, story, CSS). It also mentions auto-detection from library CEM to match existing patterns, distinguishing this generation tool from siblings like 'extend_component' or 'generate_story'.

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 usage for creating new components that fit library patterns, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the extensive sibling list. The auto-detection hint gives context but lacks direct usage boundaries.

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