scaffold_app

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, so the description carries the burden of explaining what gets destroyed (e.g., overwriting files in target_dir). The description says only 'Write a ZeusRuntime middle-man' with no mention of side effects, safety, or reversibility, adding no behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise at three lines, front-loading the core action and then constraints. Every sentence earns its place, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 has 5 parameters, a destructive hint, and no schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter semantics for force and project_name, does not explain return values (though an output schema exists), and fails to mention overwrite behavior. A scaffolding tool typically needs to state what it creates and overwrites.

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 compensate. It clarifies app_kind (cli or api) and coding_language (python only) but leaves force, project_name, and target_dir (beyond being required) unexplained. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema documentation.

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 a verb and resource ('Write a ZeusRuntime middle-man') but is vague about what scaffolding entails. It differentiates from use_sample/demo_travel_sample but not from start_project or other potential scaffolding siblings, leaving the exact purpose ambiguous.

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?

It explicitly excludes UI demo use ('UI demos use use_sample / demo_travel_sample, not this tool') but provides no positive when-to-use guidance and no differentiation from start_project or other tools that might create projects. The constraints on app_kind and coding_language are useful but not usage context.

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