create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the key use_current_dir behavior and notes that a summary of created files is returned. However, it omits potential side effects like file creation in existing directories (unless empty), overwrite risks, or permission requirements, which are relevant for a scaffold tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise behavior note. Each sentence adds value: the scaffold summary, the return value, and the use_current_dir exception. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity, the description provides a good high-level overview of what is scaffolded and the return value. The output schema exists (though not shown), so return values need not be detailed. It lacks a bit of depth on prerequisites or side effects, but for a complex scaffold tool, it is reasonably complete.

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% since the description does not explain the config object or its many sub-parameters. The description only mentions output_dir and use_current_dir indirectly. The schema itself has detailed descriptions, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for all config semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Scaffold') and clearly identifies the resource: a complete new project including API, frontend, database config, Docker, and CI/CD. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_project and add_component by focusing on initial project creation.

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 projects, and the use_current_dir note provides a conditional usage detail. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use configure_project to modify an existing project'), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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