scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and provides valuable details: dry_run lists what will be built, dry_run=false actually builds it, and groups must be created manually. This goes beyond the schema. It does not state what happens if the project is not empty, which would be useful, but the disclosed behavior is strong.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the main action and full resource list, the dry_run behavior, and a critical limitation. Every clause earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 single-boolean tool with an output schema, this description is largely complete: it covers action, scope, dry-run behavior, and a known limitation. The main missing piece is explicit handling of non-empty projects or prerequisites, but overall an agent can invoke this tool correctly.

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 only provides a title and default for dry_run. The description adds practical meaning by explaining that dry_run lists the setup and dry_run=false executes the build. This significantly helps an agent understand the boolean's effect, which is especially important with 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific action ('Set an empty project up') and enumerates the exact resources created (tracks, returns, master chain). This is distinct from sibling tools like find_kicks or prepare_track, so an agent can identify what it does.

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 the intended context ('Set an empty project up') but does not explicitly name when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It gives enough context for an agent to infer it is for initial project scaffolding, but no direct routing to related tools.

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