Scaffold a subagent file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior. It clearly discloses that the tool returns text rather than writing the file, instructs the caller to save the output to .claude/agents/<name>.md, and lists the generated file's components.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action and output are front-loaded, and the save instruction is a clear follow-up. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five parameters all documented in the schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and next action. It could include more detail on defaults, but the combination of description and schema covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters and their meanings. The description does not add parameter-level detail but also does not need to; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action (returns a complete .claude/agents/<name>.md for a role) and enumerates the output components (frontmatter, procedure, report format, do-not rules). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools audit_claude_setup and hook_recipes, which target different concerns.

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 intended use is implied by the title and the description of the output: use this when you need to scaffold a subagent file. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion conditions.

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