scaffold_mod

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says files are created. It does not state whether existing files in output_dir are overwritten, whether the directory must be empty or pre-exist, or what happens when framework detection fails, which matters for a write-to-disk 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and a secondary sentence enumerating outputs. No padding, though the second sentence partly restates the first.

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?

For a mutating, five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the behaviors an agent most needs: overwrite/merge semantics, success/failure conditions, and any post-generation steps (e.g. whether compile_plugin must follow). Parameters are covered by the schema, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents mod_guid, framework, and game_managed_dir semantics including auto-detection. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond implying templates and build config, 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Generate a mod project skeleton') plus the artifacts produced (project files, plugin class, build configuration), which is clearer than a bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like generate_plugin or jar_scaffold_mod, so an agent cannot tell which scaffolder to pick from the text alone.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. requiring a loaded game or detected engine), and no mention of the alternative scaffolding tools. The agent must infer the call context entirely from the sibling list.

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