Generate a new project from a specified cookiecutter template, creating a bundled inert project under the operator's private root. Requires local opt-in.
Generate bundled inert project under operator private root; local opt-in required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| template | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0-alpha.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so they reveal little. The description adds meaningful context: 'bundled inert' implies a non-executable artifact, 'operator private root' specifies the storage location, and 'local opt-in required' discloses an authorization prerequisite. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent anticipate side effects.
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 entire description is one 14-word sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the key prerequisite. Every word contributes; there is no filler or repetition. This is an example of appropriate conciseness.
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 tool with no output schema, two undocumented required parameters, and several siblings, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent without parameter guidance, output expectations, or pointers to templates_list for valid template values. The single prerequisite is helpful but not 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 coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of the two parameters, 'template' and 'name'. An agent is left to guess what values these expect (e.g., a template identifier, a project display name) and what format or constraints apply. The description entirely fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 opens with 'Generate', a specific verb for creation, and names the exact resource ('bundled inert project') plus location ('operator private root'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like templates_list, project_status, or project_validate, which are read/validation operations.
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 states a clear prerequisite: 'local opt-in required'. This gives the agent an explicit condition that must be met before calling the tool. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when to prefer one sibling over another, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.