scaffold_kotlin_backend

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden; it does clarify that the tool generates multiple artifact types, which is useful behavioral detail. It does not disclose side effects such as whether files are created/overwritten in the current project, whether it assumes an existing project, or what state results after invocation.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with the main outcome first and a compact list of generated components. 'Scalable' is somewhat vague, but the sentence stays economical and easy to scan.

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?

This is a multi-option scaffold tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain lifecycle and impact, but it does not. It also leaves a schema mismatch unaddressed: backendType includes kmp-shared-client and database includes room/sqldelight, yet the description only mentions Ktor/Spring Boot backend services.

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 baseline applies and the description need not restate parameter meanings. It adds only a slight mapping by mentioning Ktor and Spring Boot, which matches the backendType enum, but provides no extra semantics for domainName or database beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Generates') on a clear resource: Kotlin backend services with routes, repositories, domain entities, Koin DI, and coroutine handlers. It is clearly distinct from sibling database/auth/observability scaffolds, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives and omits the kmp-shared-client backend type from the description.

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 implies the tool is for scaffolding a Kotlin backend stack, and the listed components signal the kind of task it addresses. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing Ktor vs Spring Boot, and no 'don't use for X' exclusions.

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