app_scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: it writes the spec into the app dir, runs xcodegen, initializes the pipeline manifest, and controls monetization mode where 'subscription strips the credit economy'. It omits whether existing directories are overwritten, auth requirements, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the spec explanation is dense but earns its place given the polymorphic parameter. No filler sentences, though the side-effect list is a long run-on.

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 main 'spec' parameter is covered. However, for a 5-parameter mutation with no annotations, the silent dest_dir and display_name parameters and the absence of overwrite/prerequisite behavior leave gaps.

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. It explains the 'spec' parameter well (dict of overrides, full dict, or path to app.spec.json) and mentions name/bundle_id defaults, but dest_dir and display_name are never addressed, leaving the agent guessing where output lands.

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 and resource ('Scaffold a new SwiftUI app') plus a second effect ('init the pipeline manifest'), which clearly separates it from siblings like app_sync_spec or design_screens_skeleton. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied (start a new app before building), and the description explains the spec fallback behavior ('otherwise the defaults for name/bundle_id'), but it never says when to prefer this over app_sync_spec or design_screens_skeleton, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must dest_dir be empty).

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