scaffold_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that base_dir is created if absent and that the name is naming-convention checked, which are useful behavioral facts. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if files already exist, required permissions, or failure modes for a multi-file creation tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and a bullet-like listing of parameters, which is good structure. However, it is somewhat verbose with references to internal issue numbers (#143, #140, D1) and MULTI_AGENT.md sections that are opaque to an external agent.

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 seven-parameter, multi-artifact creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining the created layout and parameter meanings. It omits failure handling, idempotency, and interaction with existing project files, leaving gaps an agent would need to know before calling in a non-empty directory.

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 meaningfully annotates five of the seven parameters: base_dir (created if absent), name (naming-convention checked), master (semantics of the master slot), items (expected shape), and components/instances/shared_parameters (assembly manifest content). Only limited detail is given for the exact shapes of components and shared_parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lay out a well-formed project in one call') and then enumerates exactly what artifacts it creates (components/, .dp_lib/, items.json, seed assembly manifest, project.json). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like merge_assembly and project_validate by describing creation of a project scaffold.

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 hints at downstream usage ('the result loads clean and merge_assembly consumes it unchanged once its components resolve'), which gives some context for when this tool fits in a workflow. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives like new_document, open_document, or items_new, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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