scaffold_app

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: writing files, asking before writing when no Zeus URL is stored, and a security warning not to pass a password. It does not explain force/overwrite behavior, but it provides meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 short, scannable, and every line adds actionable information: purpose, variants, language restriction, UI-demo exclusion, confirmation behavior, and a security warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, a required target_dir, and no enum constraints, and the description covers the main variants and caveats. However, it leaves gaps: force behavior is not explained, target_dir expectations are not stated, and there is no mention of how the generated scaffolding interacts with the Zeus URL state beyond asking before writing. An output schema exists, so return values are less of a concern, but the missing parameter semantics prevent a higher score.

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%, so the description must add meaning for parameters. It does explain app_kind values and restricts coding_language, which helps. However, it does not describe the required target_dir parameter, project_name, or force. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but force in particular lacks semantic guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write a ZeusRuntime middle-man.' It then clarifies the supported variants (cli or api) and explicitly separates itself from UI demo tooling ('UI demos use use_sample / demo_travel_sample, not this tool'), which distinguishes it from a relevant sibling. This gives an agent a clear idea of the tool's job.

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 direct usage constraints: app_kind can be cli or api, coding_language is python-only today, and UI demos should use other tools. It also flags that confirmation may be required when no Zeus URL is stored. It does not explicitly contrast against start_project or other siblings, but the guidance is clear enough for typical selection.

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