scaffold_agent_design_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states non-mutating behavior for approved=false and that writing only modifies the registry spec. It also mentions quality gates remain intact. Missing details on permissions or side effects, but overall transparent.

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 concise with two paragraphs. The first sentence provides a clear summary. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality, key parameter (approved), and the return format for dry-run (JSON plan with path, guardrails, commands). It does not cover all edge cases or errors, but is sufficient for agent use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'approved' parameter and the overall workflow, but does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it previews or writes a spec-first Atomic Design scaffold for agent-created files. It distinguishes between dry-run (approved=false) and write (approved=true) modes, and clarifies that writing only produces a registry spec, not code. This contrasts with sibling tools like generate_code.

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 explains when to use dry-run (for preview) versus writing (approved=true). It also notes that generated code requires additional steps (generate_code or memi generate). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly to siblings.

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