scaffold_swiftui_files

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

No annotations present, so description bears full burden. It discloses that approved=false is non-mutating, and writes are safe (no project file alteration, no overwrite). Also lists generated files. Could mention error handling or permissions, but sufficient.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with purpose and behavior. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy. Efficiently covers dry-run, write mode, safety, and file types.

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?

With 10 parameters, high schema coverage, no output schema, the description clarifies core behavior and safety. However, it doesn't describe the output format (e.g., structure of dry-run plan). Slight gap but acceptable given tool's nature.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining the purpose of `approved` (dry-run vs write) and how `kind` affects file generation. This adds value.

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 'previews or writes a deterministic SwiftUI feature scaffold' and lists specific file types generated (view, model, preview, test). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `generate_code` which may be more generic.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: default approved=false is non-mutating (dry-run), set approved=true only after reviewing the plan. It also states writes never alter Xcode project files and refuse to overwrite. No direct comparison to siblings, but context is clear enough for usage.

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