add_helper_scripts

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it creates a scripts/ directory, updates .gitignore, and generates scaffold files. Annotations already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive. No contradictions. Slightly lacking details on overwrite behavior for existing files, but sufficient.

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 efficient sentences: first lists script types, second gives prerequisite and alternative tool reference. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and boundary with search_documentation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 single parameter contractName has full schema description coverage (100%). The schema already explains its purpose and auto-detection behavior. The tool description does not add further parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 adds automation scripts (build, deploy, upgrade, etc.) to an existing project. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deploy_sc by clarifying it generates scaffold scripts, not performing deployments.

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?

Explicitly says to run from the project root directory and directs users to search_documentation for CLI syntax reference, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. Also implies the tool is for existing projects.

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