scaffold_kotlin_project_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait by stating that existing files are verified before writing to avoid overwriting documentation. However, it leaves ambiguity around the overwriteExisting parameter: whether setting it to true bypasses this verification is not clarified, and no other side effects (e.g., creating directories) are mentioned.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, enumerates the output files, and states the safety behavior. Slight vagueness in 'tailored to user prompts' is acceptable because the schema shows the prompt-related fields.

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?

The tool is complex with 8 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, yet the description only lists the generated markdown files and one safety behavior. It does not explain how target, projectType, or designPreferences affect the docs, nor what success, failure, or return behavior looks like. An agent would need to infer too much to confidently invoke it.

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 50%, and parameters like target, projectType, designPreferences, and overwriteExisting are not described in the schema. The description's phrase 'tailored to user prompts' weakly implies that these inputs influence generated content, but it does not explain how each parameter maps to the documentation output or provide semantics beyond what the schema already gives.

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 ('Scaffolds') and the exact resources it produces: PRD.md, architecture.md, rules.md, phases.md, design.md, and memory.md. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scaffolding tools like scaffold_kotlin_backend or scaffold_kotlin_database, which target different artifacts.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like scaffold_kotlin_backend or generate_kotlin_api_bridge. The phrase 'tailored to user prompts' implies customization but does not state the intended scenario (e.g., initial project kickoff or documentation generation) or provide exclusion criteria.

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