Scaffold a genre show

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

The description discloses specific side effects (writes the project's global tempo via op('/').time.tempo), return value structure (container path, node paths, BPM, palette), and genre-specific behaviors (installation has no clock unless bpm provided). It also clarifies that the 'master' output Null and genre look are wired into it. These details go well beyond the annotations, which only state openWorldHint=true and readOnly=false.

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 packed with relevant information but remains well-structured: main purpose, genre-specific details, side effects, return values, and usage alternatives. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it (vs. scaffold_show), what it returns, its side effects, and how to continue after invocation. It also mentions edge cases like installation without a clock. No output schema exists, so the description's explicit return-value list is essential and sufficient.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds concrete preset values (~130 BPM for techno, ~70 BPM for ambient, dark/warm/muted palettes) and explains the bpm override effect for installation. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 'Create a genre-flavored starting network under parent_path', which is a specific verb+resource, and immediately distinguishes from the sibling scaffold_show ('beyond scaffold_show's blank skeleton'). It clearly communicates what the tool does and how it differs from alternatives.

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 explicitly says 'Use scaffold_show instead for an empty skeleton with no look or palette', providing a clear when-not alternative. It also gives sequential next steps ('Then add scenes, a layer mixer into master, cues, and a control surface'), which guides the user on when to use this tool.

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