scaffold_viewmodel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., file creation), required permissions, dependencies (like an existing Xcode project), or whether it overwrites existing files. The generation act is implied but not detailed.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with key information. It is concise and focused, earning its place without extraneous detail.

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 there are only 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention what happens if the file already exists, what code conventions are used, or any prerequisites, leaving gaps for a generation tool.

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 high at 100% with the schema already describing 'name' as 'ViewModel name' and 'outputPath' as 'directory'. The description adds the '@Observable' detail but otherwise does not significantly augment parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool generates an '@Observable ViewModel class', using a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('ViewModel class'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scaffold_view' and 'scaffold_coredata_model' by specifying the exact type of artifact created.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tools include other scaffolds like 'scaffold_view' and 'scaffold_coredata_model', and the name and description imply this is for ViewModel classes in Swift/SwiftUI contexts, providing implied usage guidance.

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