Scaffold Template

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. However, it only states the action ('scaffold into the project graph') without detailing notable behaviors such as whether it creates nodes/edges, whether it is idempotent, or how it handles conflicts. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 resource. There is no redundant wording, and every term (standard, feature, decision, workflow, project graph) adds relevant context. It is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description is sufficient. It clearly states the tool's effect (scaffolding templates into the graph) and the schema covers parameters. While it does not explain return values, the tool's primary purpose is clear, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema fully explains all three parameters. The description adds a mapping of 'fdd' to feature and 'rfc' to decision, but this is already present in the parameter descriptions. Therefore, the description provides no significant additional meaning 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 a specific verb ('Scaffold') and clearly identifies the resource ('standard feature (fdd) or decision (rfc) workflow templates') and target ('into the project graph'). It distinguishes from sibling 'scaffold_spec' by naming the template types, 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 provides clear usage context by specifying when to use it (scaffolding fdd or rfc templates). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the template types imply the intended scenarios, which is sufficient for most agents.

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