scaffold_kotlin_observability

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral side effects itself, but it only says 'Scaffolds' and lists outputs. It does not state whether it creates/modifies files, whether it can overwrite existing code, whether external credentials are needed, or what the operational impact is. This is a significant transparency gap for a code-generation 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main output categories and contains no filler. The omission of Datadog and any parameter detail prevents a perfect score, but as a compact summary it is effective.

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 scaffold tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation. It does not explain preconditions, generated file behavior, how customEventNames is used, or why Datadog is supported. An agent is left to guess important details about the tool's operation and options.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It makes no explicit mention of 'provider' or 'customEventNames'. The provider enum is somewhat self-explanatory from the schema, and 'analytics event loggers' loosely relates to customEventNames, but the description does not clarify how either parameter affects the generated scaffold or what values mean.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scaffolds') and clearly names what is generated: crash reporting, analytics event loggers, and network latency interceptors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scaffolding tools by observability domain. However, it mentions only Sentry/Firebase while the schema also supports Datadog, so the purpose statement is not fully aligned with the actual parameter options.

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?

Usage is implied from the domain-specific content: an agent can infer this tool is for crash reporting, analytics logging, and network observability. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when a different scaffold sibling would be more appropriate.

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