scaffold_principis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return type (markdown) and one non-obvious behavior (missing vector leaves a deliberate gap rather than failing), and it transfers responsibility to the caller to write the file. It does not state where the file is written, whether an existing principis.md is overwritten, or what validation the answers must pass.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the conditional rule and return contract follow compactly. The only friction is the terse 'запиши его', which assumes context about where the markdown belongs.

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 one-parameter scaffolding tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (consumes answers, returns markdown, caller persists it). It still leaves the file destination, overwrite semantics, and per-key expectations unspecified, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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?

There is a single nested 'answers' object with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone conveys nothing. The description compensates by naming the five expected keys, which is real added value, but gives no types, allowed values, or format for any of them (e.g., what interface_mode or temperament accept).

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 and artifact: assemble principis.md from the user's answers, and enumerates exactly which answer keys feed it (who/vector/interface_mode/temperament/not_known). An agent knows what it produces. It does not compare itself to any sibling, and 'principis' is unexplained jargon, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the input requirement (must have user answers) and there is one conditional rule ('вектор не дан → пробел держим живым'), plus the instruction to persist the output. There is no explicit when-not-to-use and no named alternative among the many siblings, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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