scaffold_project

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

Annotations are present but limited. The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention that the tool creates files, whether it overwrites existing content, or any side effects. With annotations providing only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description should add context about file creation behavior but fails to do so.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too minimal for the tool's complexity, sacrificing necessary detail 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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, limited annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'scaffold' means, what the output is, prerequisites, or how to use the parameters. The tool needs significantly more context for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'template' indirectly ('from a template') but does not explain the meaning or purpose of parameters like 'name', 'options', 'metadata', or 'target_dir'. The description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 action ('scaffold'), the resource ('a Cities: Skylines II mod project'), and the source ('from a template'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'build_project' or 'write_project_file' by the verb 'scaffold', implying initial project creation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when an existing project already exists), or when to use other tools like 'build_project' or 'package_project'. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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