aura_scaffold_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose output content (dependency-ordered markup, combined deps, full bodies when full:true), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor its permission/auth requirements — a notable gap for an operation named 'scaffold' that references 'install'.

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 lead clause front-loads the purpose, but the rest is a dense semicolon-chained run-on that mixes parameter docs, output shape, and sibling relationships in one breath. It is compact but harder to parse than necessary; every fragment carries information, yet structure is sacrificed.

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?

For a complex 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key agent questions unanswered: what 'goal' means, what 'system' selects, and crucially whether the tool mutates anything or requires authorization. Partial output and parameter coverage is not enough at this complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for components, specifying accepted ref types (string|number|{id}|{slug}) with concrete examples, and documents full:true. But the required 'goal' parameter and 'system' are entirely unexplained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 opening phrase 'One ordered page build' names a specific action and explicitly enumerates its deliverables (DESIGN.md, tokens.css, system preview, component markup in dependency order). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it 'merges install_* + use_* in a single turn.' The jargon density ('combined deps + files[]') slightly obscures the plain purpose, but the verb+resource are identifiable.

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 implication that this replaces separate install_*/use_* calls is a useful routing signal toward aura_install_component and aura_use_design_system, but it is stated as a capability rather than a directive ('use this instead of X when Y'). No explicit when-not guidance or preconditions are given.

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