scaffold_kotlin_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only partially pays it: it discloses what gets generated (entities, DAOs, migrations) but is silent on critical scaffolding behaviors — whether existing files are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, and what project context it assumes. For a code-generation tool, overwrite behavior is essential to disclose.

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?

One sentence of roughly 20 words with no filler. The action verb and resource are front-loaded, and every clause adds a concrete detail (Room 2.7+, KSP, Flow-returning DAOs, AutoMigration).

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?

For a tool with a nested entities parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves too much unsaid: how to structure entity definitions, what schemaVersion controls, and what the scaffold produces on disk. An agent can correctly supply databaseName but is guessing on the entities object beyond its property names.

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 only 33% (databaseName alone), so the description must compensate, but it doesn't. It names 'entities' but gives no semantics for the nested structure — what 'fields' (string-to-string map) means, how primaryKey relates to fields, or how tableName maps to the entity. schemaVersion is never mentioned, leaving an undocumented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Scaffolds') and resource ('Android Room 2.7+ (KSP) database'), then adds precise scope: entities, DAOs returning Coroutine Flow streams, and AutoMigration strategies. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scaffold_kotlin_backend or scaffold_kotlin_auth_flow.

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 version and tooling constraints ('2.7+ (KSP)') imply this is for Android projects using KSP-based Room, which nudges an agent toward correct usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives (e.g., KAPT-based Room or non-Room persistence), and no mention of prerequisites like an existing Android project.

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