demo2_scaffold_confirm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or state changes beyond 'complete scaffolding'. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, lacking any parameter or behavioral context.

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 (2 required) and no output schema, the description omits return value info, error conditions, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters, leaving all five properties (including required ones) unexplained beyond their names and enums. The agent gains no additional meaning from the description.

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 completes project scaffolding and resumes a flow started by a specific sibling tool, demo2_scaffold_start, distinguishing its role as a follow-up step.

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 says 'after user has made their choices' and 'resumes the flow started by demo2_scaffold_start', providing clear context for when to invoke. No explicit exclusions are given, but the sequential relationship is well-defined.

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