scaffold_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden and excels: it discloses no token required, writes project.json if absent, returns specific values, and refuses to overwrite existing files. This gives a complete safety and behavior profile.

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 compact yet dense with useful information: file path, no token, starter type, return value, and overwrite behavior. Every sentence adds value, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a local file-writing tool: purpose, behavior, return value, and file safety. It doesn't detail every parameter's semantics fully, but given the simplicity of the parameters and the adequate behavioral coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 package_dir and subfolder as path components, but 'name' is not explicitly defined. The description implies name is used in the filename (starter *.recipe.json) but doesn't spell out its exact role. This is partial compensation but not complete.

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 tool creates a local *.recipe.json file with a specific structure (clock->logger starter). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_recipe by emphasizing 'LOCAL file write (no token)' and 'connection-less', making it clear this is for scaffolding files rather than interacting with the platform.

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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool: for local file scaffolding without needing a token. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'LOCAL file write (no token)' against sibling tools like create_recipe suggests the intended use case clearly enough.

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