scaffold_project_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'dry-run and patch safety,' hinting at non-destructive behavior and safety mechanisms, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what 'patch safety' entails. For a complex tool with 16 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, dense sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes key behavioral hints ('dry-run and patch safety'), making it highly efficient and well-structured for its complexity.

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 high complexity (16 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter semantics or behavioral nuances, relying too heavily on the output schema and leaving the agent under-informed for proper tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain any of the 16 parameters' purposes, relationships, or required combinations. While it mentions artifacts like 'blueprint' and 'guide,' it doesn't map these to parameters like 'agentDefinitions' or 'qualityGates,' leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the specific action ('scaffold reusable project agent artifacts') and lists the exact outputs (blueprint, guide, bootstrap prompt, optional MCP config). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scaffold_project_skills' by focusing on agent artifacts rather than skills.

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 implies usage context through mentioning 'dry-run and patch safety,' suggesting when to use safety features, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'scaffold_project_skills' or 'materialize_recommended_agents.' No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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