Scaffold project tracking docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it writes files, but does not disclose overwrite behavior, side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. The 'overwrite' flag in the schema is not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent unaware of potential file replacement unless it inspects the schema.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The core action and output files are front-loaded, followed by exact timing. Every word earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential 'when and what'. The schema covers overwrite and target_dir behavior, so the agent can call it correctly. It lacks explicit failure/success signals or mention of the optional overwrite flag, but these are in the schema, making it sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 67% (overwrite and target_dir have descriptions, session_id does not). The description adds no parameter-level detail, leaving session_id completely unexplained and not compensating for the schema gap. Since coverage is moderate, the description should at least clarify what session_id refers to, but it doesn't.

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 specific action (write) and the exact resources (four named files) plus the data source (scope/architecture/schema/roadmap). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are about sessions, planning, or questioning, making the tool's role obvious.

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 says to call once 'right after generate_roadmap finalizes' and at the point implementation begins. This is precise temporal guidance. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it, but given the pipeline context and lack of similar alternatives among siblings, the guidance is sufficient.

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