scaffold_driver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say where the generated driver goes (file path, working directory, or return value), whether it overwrites existing files, what runtime/permission requirements exist, or what state the tool depends on.

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 no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification for a generation tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a code-generation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description omits prerequisites, output location, and parameter meaning. It is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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% and the description names none of the three parameters (device, capture, markers). 'Inferred protocol' vaguely hints that capture is the source of inference, but device selection and markers are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (generate) and resource (standalone Python/pyusb driver for the inferred protocol), which is clear enough to separate it from artifact-producing siblings like wireshark_dissector and hid_descriptor. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite stated (e.g. that a capture must first be recorded and analyzed), and no contrast with the alternative artifacts (wireshark_dissector, hid_descriptor). The phrase 'inferred protocol' weakly implies prior capture analysis but that is inference, not guidance.

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