ASO Scaffold Outputs

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety/mutation profile. The description adds the default 32-language scope, but says nothing about what happens to pre-existing files on a repeat call (idempotency semantics) and its 'Returns' line merely restates the output 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with clear 'Use when' and 'Returns' labels and no filler. The Returns sentence is redundant given the output schema, which is the only wasted line.

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?

With annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, routing, and return shape adequately. Only the idempotent-overwrite behavior on existing files is left unstated, a minor gap for this scaffolding tool.

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 100%, so app_name, base_dir, and locales are fully documented in the schema. The description's '32 languages' note loosely reinforces the locales default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Create) plus concrete resource (outputs/<App>/ ASO skeleton with apple-metadata.md in 32 languages). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling aso_run, so an agent can choose between them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit 'Use when: standalone ASO work' paired with 'Inside the pipeline use aso_run' gives both the positive condition and the named alternative, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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