generate_scroll_scaffold

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful generation-content behavior — the output includes reversible chapter states plus pause and reduced-motion handling, which hints at accessibility compliance. It does not disclose output format, size limits, or whether chapters beyond the schema cap are rejected.

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, verb-first, with zero filler or restatement of the tool name. It is dense but readable; the only nit is that cramming four distinct feature claims into one clause list slightly blurs the read.

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 generator with four inputs at 0% coverage and no output schema, the description leaves an agent guessing about required fields (title, chapters), the accent format, and the templateId role. Annotations cover safety but nothing about invocation, so the definition is materially incomplete for correct calling.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. The word 'chapter' faintly gestures at the chapters array, but title, accent, and templateId are never mentioned, and there is no word on the 2-6 chapter bound or the hex accent pattern. Far below the baseline for a zero-coverage schema.

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 (Generate) and resource (pinned native-scroll HTML) with a qualifier that this is 'complete original' output, plus feature scope (reversible chapter states, pause, reduced motion). This distinguishes it from generic generate_* siblings like generate_responsive_layout or generate_glsl_shader. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer when, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and never references an alternative tool despite ~38 siblings. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this precedes build_motion_timeline or replaces generate_responsive_layout. It is purely a statement of what gets produced.

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