Scaffold Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'in .specs/' and 'ingest it into memory' provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files, whether it requires a project context, or what 'ingest into memory' means operationally. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly states the action and location. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what is scaffolded, where, and the follow-up ingestion. Minor gaps include not mentioning idempotency, the exact memory effect, or return values, but these are not critical for a scaffold operation.

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 100% (both title and project have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how title or project affect the scaffolding or ingestion, so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'scaffold' and identifies the resource as a 'standard feature specification template in .specs/', then adds 'ingest it into memory' to clarify the full scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaffold_template (which may only create a template) and ingest_spec (which only ingests), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scaffold_template, ingest_spec, or export_spec. It doesn't state prerequisites, when NOT to use it, or any explicit selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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