Scaffold Spi Device

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the write semantics are covered. The description adds only a scope remark and says nothing about what is written, whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten, or what the generated sketch contains, so it contributes little beyond the structured hints.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is good structure. But for a write tool that produces a file, the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, so the sentence does not "earn its place" as fully as it could.

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?

A file-writing scaffold tool with no output schema, one undocumented required parameter, and no sibling-specific routing. Nothing tells the agent what the sketch looks like, how it differs from scaffold_behavioral_subcircuit, or whether it overwrites existing content, so the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 50%: workspace_root is documented inline but output_path, the sole required parameter, has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining the path's role or any path/format expectations, so an agent gets no additional meaning from the prose.

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 names a verb and resource ("write a behavioral sketch") and adds a negative scope ("not a protocol engine"), which gives some sense of intent. However, "behavioral sketch" is vague about what artifact is actually produced, and there is no differentiation from the parallel siblings scaffold_i2c_device and scaffold_behavioral_subcircuit.

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 only guidance is the exclusion "not a protocol engine", which hints at when this is inappropriate but names no alternative tool and gives no condition for choosing this over scaffold_behavioral_subcircuit or scaffold_i2c_device. There is no when-to-use statement at all.

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