project_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details side effects (writes files directly), file structure per language, platform defaults and clamping, dropped platforms reported in warnings, and the returned fields (path, uuid, etc.). This is highly transparent.

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 long but appropriately so given 7 parameters and no schema descriptions. It is well-structured with bolded parameter names and code-formatted paths. Every sentence adds valuable information, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does clearly. It also covers file creation, platform constraints, and implications of options. It is complete for a scaffolding tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It thoroughly explains every parameter: kind (watchface/watchapp), language (c vs javascript with details), platforms (defaults and clamping), companion, config, and dest_dir. Even name is referenced in the path and file naming (`<slug(name)>`). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Scaffold') and resource ('new, immediately buildable Pebble project'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pebble_build (build) and project_info (inspect). The additional detail about writing files directly without shelling out to the CLI adds further specificity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for scaffolding a new project on hosts without the CLI. It explains platform clamping for JavaScript projects and the effect of companion/config options. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools (e.g., use pebble_build for compilation).

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