scaffold_coredata_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'generates' a subclass, but omits critical details: whether it overwrites existing files, whether it requires a valid outputPath directory, side effects on the file system, or that it generates a .swift file. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about the tool's actual behavior.

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 7-word sentence with no fluff or redundant information. It is concise but at the expense of completeness. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though it lacks detail that would make it more useful.

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 tool's complexity (code generation with file creation, default attributes, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, default behaviors, or error conditions. The schema covers parameter structure but not the tool's overall effect. The description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (name, attributes, outputPath) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explanations of default attribute behavior or the generated file format. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Generate a Core Data NSManagedObject subclass with attributes' uses a specific verb ('Generate') and specifies the resource ('Core Data NSManagedObject subclass'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling scaffold tools like scaffold_view, scaffold_viewmodel, and scaffold_widget, which target different code artifacts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing Core Data model), context (e.g., Xcode project), or scenarios where it is inappropriate. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are given.

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