scaffold_mod

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with '(returned, never written)' and discloses the no-template listing behavior, but adds nothing about output shape or the params argument. Useful but not rich given annotations.

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 tight sentences: the core purpose leads, the discovery/listing instruction follows. Template names are enumerated compactly with no filler.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the list-vs-generate mode and read-only behavior. The only real gap is the unexplained `params` argument for a tool whose schema offers zero parameter documentation.

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 carry the burden. It fully explains `template` by enumerating all six valid values and the omit-to-list semantics, but the `params` object remains entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb+resource: generates starter mod code from guide recipes drawn from working mods. The parenthetical '(returned, never written)' sharply distinguishes it from file-writing or mutation siblings like write_draft. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer for related lookups.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional: 'Call without `template` to list templates', which turns the tool into a discoverable list-or-generate flow. It enumerates the valid template values, so the agent knows exactly what it can request. It does not say when to reach for this over find_examples or search_guide.

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