Scaffold Locale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that values are set to empty strings, that JSON and PHP formats are supported, and that it does not modify the framework config. It does not mention what happens if files already exist or what the return value is, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the main action, the key-structure behavior, supported formats, and the all-important config caveat are all front-loaded and concise. No filler or redundancy.

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 write/scaffold tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the behavior, the data format, and the critical prerequisite about config. The only notable gap is that it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., created file paths or summary) for non-dry-run calls.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, but it provides useful background about locale structure and formats, which slightly supports understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Create empty locale files for new languages') and explains the exact behavior: copying the default locale's key structure with empty values. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_translations, get_translations, or translate_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?

It explicitly states when to use it (new languages needing scaffolded files) and provides the key prerequisite warning that the agent must add the locale to the config first. It also explicitly prescribes 'Does NOT modify framework config.' It does not name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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