scaffold_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key safety behavior: it will not overwrite a non-empty directory without force=True. It also states what files will be created. It does not mention side effects like permissions or success output, but the critical destructive behavior is covered.

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?

Two clean sentences: the first states the action and output, the second states the safety condition. No filler or repetition of schema defaults. Every word adds value.

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 scaffolding tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides a concise list of artifacts and the overwrite rule. It does not describe the resulting directory hierarchy or the effects of project_name/part, but the core purpose and key edge case are sufficiently covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains project_dir as the target location and force as the overwrite toggle, but it does not clarify project_name or part (beyond the STM32C011 default). This partially bridges the gap but leaves half the parameters without additional semantic context.

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 ('Create') and names a precise resource ('minimal bare-metal CMake/Ninja STM32C011 project skeleton') with concrete contents (linker script, startup code, blinky main.c). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (build, flash, list_probes) as the project-scaffolding operation.

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 establishes the context (use when creating a new project skeleton) and includes an important usage condition ('Does not overwrite an existing non-empty directory unless force=True'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct scaffolding purpose and the sibling list make the intended use obvious.

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