Scaffold a new feature module from Nstok-feature-template when required capabilities are missing.
Scaffold a new feature module from Nstok-feature-template when missing capabilities are required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | No | Feature description | |
| featureName | Yes | Feature name (e.g. "sales-report") | |
| capabilities | Yes | List of capabilities provided by this feature (e.g. ["daily-summary", "revenue-analytics"]) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool scaffolds a module from a template, but does not disclose what files or directories are created, whether it overwrites or fails on existing features, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
A single sentence with zero waste. The purpose and usage condition are front-loaded and no clarifying detail is buried or repeated.
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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the return value, what destination or project the feature is created in, or how this operation interacts with sibling tools. An agent is left guessing about critical context for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with examples. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints for those parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb (scaffold) and resource (feature module from Nstok-feature-template). It does not differentiate this tool from close siblings like clone_feature_template, create_feature_plan, or add_feature_to_app, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to pick.
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 phrase 'when missing capabilities are required' gives a clear condition for use, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer how this differs from siblings that also create or add features.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.