Create Aura (Lightning) Component

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return value (complete bundle file contents) and the optional Apex controller. It could elaborate on filesystem side effects, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequately 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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, return contents, parameter guidance, and sibling differentiation. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundancy or filler.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return format and usage context sufficiently. It could briefly clarify whether files are written to disk or just returned as content, but the explicit return statement largely covers this. Overall, it is well-rounded and complete.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description goes further by highlighting key parameters (interfaces, attributes, controller) and providing a concrete example ('force:appHostable for App Builder'), which helps the agent map user intent to schema fields.

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 the specific verb 'Generates' and identifies the exact resource: 'An Aura (Lightning Component Framework) component scaffold'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly recommending sf_create_lwc for new development and positioning this tool for legacy migration scenarios.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use sf_create_lwc for new development — Aura is for legacy migration scenarios.' It names the alternative tool and the appropriate context for using this one, satisfying the when-to-use requirement.

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