qcli_scaffold_plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and this description adds substantial context beyond them: it runs an npx generator (network fetch), writes to packages/plugins/<name> or a standalone qodalis-cli-<name> project, and installs dependencies as a side effect. It also states what is returned (created files and next steps), which is important since no output schema exists.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the generator, followed by location behavior and return value. Every sentence carries new information with no repetition of the title or name.

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?

It covers what is created, where it lands, that dependencies are installed, and what is returned, which is sufficient given full schema coverage and no output schema. It omits edge-case behavior such as what happens when the target plugin directory already exists, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 name, directory, description, and processorName are each documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (create), the exact resource (web CLI plugin), the concrete generator used (@qodalis/create-cli-plugin via npx), and enumerates what the scaffold contains (processor, module, build config, tests). That is far more specific than the sibling docs/api tools, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 clear context for when the tool applies and even explains the two different target locations depending on whether it runs inside a web-cli checkout. It does not state exclusions or explicitly redirect to any sibling tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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