scaffold_android_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool writes a project structure (including wrapper generation, conditional on PATH), never overwrites non-empty dirs, and explains the dependency on `gradle_build`. Although it doesn't explicitly state that it's a write operation (non-read, potentially destructive), the 'never overwrites' phrasing implies safety for existing directories. A small gap is the lack of mention of cleanup or rollback if something fails, but overall it is thorough.

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 two dense, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. Every clause earns its place: the first lists deliverables, the second addresses overwrite behavior and Gradle wrapper conditions. It is efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, its side effects, prerequisites (empty directory, optional gradle on PATH), and how it relates to sibling tools like `gradle_build`. There is no missing guidance for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds context beyond the schema: it explains that `destination` must be empty/new, and implies `name` and `package` affect the generated content. This adds meaningful usage nuance.

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 states it creates a minimal Kotlin Android app in a new empty directory, listing specific outputs like Gradle Kotlin DSL, AndroidManifest, launcher Activity, resources, README, and gitignore. This is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `build_and_run` or `gradle_build`.

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 explicitly says the tool never overwrites a non-empty directory, and provides clear context about when to use it vs alternatives: it generates the Gradle wrapper when `gradle` is on PATH for immediate buildability with `gradle_build`, and explains what happens if no gradle is installed. This gives the agent solid when/when-not guidance.

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