jar_scaffold_mod

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about what files are written, whether an existing directory is overwritten, whether the result is immediately loadable, or what permissions/locations are touched. For a tool whose entire purpose is emitting files to disk, this is a substantive 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficiently structured, though the terseness is closer to under-specification than true economy.

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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say more: what the 'structure' contains (build files, manifest, source dirs), whether it is Java-compiled, and how it relates to subsequent build/deploy tools. An agent cannot confidently chain this tool from the description alone.

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 100%, so all seven parameters (including defaults for loader and mc_version) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a minimal Minecraft mod JAR structure.' An agent can tell it produces a scaffold, but nothing distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling 'scaffold_mod' (nor from 'build_and_deploy' or 'jar_repack'), so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical sibling 'scaffold_mod'. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool versus scaffold_mod, gorebox_generate_mod, or generate_plugin.

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