Creates the outputs// skeleton with apple-metadata.md and 32 language files for App Store metadata, using app name, base directory, and optional locales.
Create the outputs// skeleton (including apple-metadata.md, 32 languages).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locales | No | ||
| app_name | Yes | ||
| base_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what gets created but not whether existing files are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires credentials/permissions, or what happens if the directory already exists — important for a file-creating scaffold.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though the parenthetical about '32 languages' is terse to the point of ambiguity.
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 not be described, but for a file-writing scaffold with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it safely or confidently.
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% and none of app_name, base_dir, or locales is explained in prose. The phrase '32 languages' faintly implies the locale default, but the required base_dir and app_name are left entirely to the schema's bare types.
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 (Create) and resource (the outputs/<App>/ skeleton) and names concrete artifacts it produces (apple-metadata.md, 32 languages). Clear enough for an agent to know what it does, though it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like app_scaffold or design_screens_skeleton.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many scaffolding/metadata siblings. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'skeleton'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.