scaffold_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully enumerates the side effects (copy template, modify config files, set up i18n, init git), which indicates a mutation that creates files and a git repo. However, it omits whether existing directories are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or what happens on partial failure.

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 efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and follows with concrete effects. No wasted words.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete: it fails to cover error behavior, overwrite semantics, environment prerequisites, and success confirmation. The schema covers inputs well, but behavioral context around this mutation remains thin.

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 all six parameters are already well documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (scaffolds) and resource (Expo + React Native app from the FSD template), and lists concrete effects: copying the template, updating app.json/package.json/eas.json, setting up i18n, and initializing git. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_apps (read-only inventory) and setup_store_config (configuration), which do not create apps.

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 by defining what the tool does, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., Node/Expo CLI availability, working directory assumptions), and no mention of when not to use it versus alternatives. For a scaffolding mutation, this leaves the agent to infer context.

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