acc_cde_structure_template

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'Returns a JSON structure' and 'review it first, then create,' making it clear the tool does not modify anything. It adds context about the output being a template for later creation and the from_config option, which aligns with and expands on the annotation's safety profile.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a practical usage hint in the middle. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, output destination, and input options. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 six fully documented parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool produces, who it is for ('any project'), how to provide inputs, and the follow-up action (pass to acc_create_folder_structure). The description is complete for a template-generation tool with rich structured metadata.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic grouping by referencing 'WIP disciplines, Published milestones and Shared subfolders' and mentions from_config with an example, but it does not substantially enrich the parameter meanings beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.

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's function: 'Generate a generic ISO 19650 CDE folder structure... from simple lists' and distinguishes it from siblings by noting the output is 'ready to pass to acc_create_folder_structure' rather than directly creating folders. This specific verb+resource combination makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the create-folder sibling.

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 gives clear usage context: it is project-agnostic and meant for building a folder tree template, with specific instructions on inputs ('Give the WIP disciplines, the Published milestones and the Shared subfolders') or pulling from config. It also implies the alternative workflow by pointing to acc_create_folder_structure for actual creation, though it does not explicitly state when not 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.