Scaffold ReSpec Source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a path constraint but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting behavior), permissions needed, or what happens on failure. The behavior beyond creation is opaque.

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 two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose, the second adds a key constraint. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover return values, parameter interactions (e.g., how 'overrides' is used), and typical usage scenarios. It lacks this context, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'repo-local profile' and 'status-specific template', hinting at the 'profile' and 'status' parameters, but leaves 'overrides', 'source', and 'output' unexplained. This is insufficient for 5 parameters.

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 verb ('Creates') and the resource ('ReSpec source document'), and specifies the inputs ('repo-local profile and status-specific template'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools: respec_build is for building, respec_list_profiles for listing, etc., so this tool's role is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like respec_build, respec_validate, or respec_preflight. It does not state prerequisites or conditions where scaffolding is appropriate.

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