scaffold_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose side effects (does it overwrite existing files?), permissions needed, whether the preview is included by default based on the schema default, or what happens if the directory doesn't exist. The simple description lacks these behavioral details.

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?

One concise sentence that captures the core functionality. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant information.

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 simple interface (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely adequate. However, lack of behavioral details (overwrite behavior, project context) and usage guidance reduces completeness for a code generation tool. It covers the basics but leaves gaps.

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% and the description mentions 'with optional preview provider' which aligns with the includePreview parameter, adding minimal value. The description doesn't elaborate on name or outputPath beyond what the schema says, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a SwiftUI View file with optional preview provider, using specific verb 'Generate' and specific resource 'SwiftUI View file'. This distinguishes it from siblings like scaffold_viewmodel and scaffold_coredata_model, though the purpose could be slightly more precise about what 'scaffold' entails.

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 doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the distinction from siblings like scaffold_viewmodel, scaffold_coredata_model, and scaffold_widget is implied by the resource type. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., project existence) or when not to use it.

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