create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'scaffold' without mentioning side effects like filesystem changes, git initialization (which is a parameter), reversibility, or error conditions. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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, concise sentence that states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and avoids repetition of schema information, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having a rich schema and output schema, the description is too minimal for a scaffolding tool. It doesn't explain the workflow, what happens after execution, how to select a template, or any side effects, which is essential for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not mention any parameters, so it adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per baseline rules, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'scaffold' and resource 'new project', clearly indicating the tool's core function. It also references 'Starter Series template', which gives context about the template source. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_component or list_templates within the description itself, relying on the schema's template description for that.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or that one should first call list_templates to choose a template. This is a clear gap given the related sibling tools.

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