scaffold_hpc_grid

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions bootstrapping a template and setting up loops/wrappers, but does not explain what files are created, whether it is destructive, or what the side effects are (e.g., overwriting existing files). This is insufficient for a scaffolding 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?

The description is only two sentences (18 words), front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has a small parameter set and an output schema (reducing the need to explain returns), the description still fails to cover key aspects: what the dimensions parameter represents (2D vs 3D?), whether it creates a new directory or modifies an existing one, and what the generated template includes. The lack of parameter descriptions in the schema makes the description's omissions more critical.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. The description provides context about grid/stencil calculations and Coarrays/OpenMP, but it does not explicitly explain the three parameters (project_path, grid_name, dimensions). The overall purpose is clear, but parameter semantics are not directly addressed.

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 the tool bootstraps a modern HPC template for grid/stencil calculations using Coarrays or OpenMP, and it mentions specific setup details like stencil iteration loops and ghost cell exchange wrappers. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaffold_unit_test.

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 tool is for HPC grid/stencil projects but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks directive guidance.

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