scaffold_widget

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 adds context by explaining what each widget kind uses (TimelineProvider vs AppIntents). However, it does not disclose whether files are overwritten, naming conventions, or side effects like creating multiple files. This is moderate transparency.

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 sentence under 25 words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy.

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?

With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is functional but lacks detail about what files are generated, directory structure, or naming conventions. The kind explanation helps, but completeness is average for a code 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description expands on the 'kind' parameter by explaining the API behind each option, which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Widget type' description. It does not enhance the other parameters, but this addition justifies a score above baseline.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'WidgetKit extension', and it distinguishes between 'static' and 'configurable' kinds. This differentiates it from sibling scaffold tools like scaffold_view and scaffold_viewmodel, which target different resource types.

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 when to use this tool (when you want to generate a WidgetKit extension) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives. Among many scaffold siblings, no exclusions or comparisons are given. The internal differentiation between static and configurable is helpful but not external usage guidance.

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