keystone_new_adapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the main effect (creating a directory) but does not mention what files are scaffolded, the effect of the 'force' parameter, or any destructive aspects. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a scaffolding/mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and location, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

The description is too thin for a scaffolding tool. It lacks context about what an adapter is, when to use this tool, how the force parameter behaves, and what the scaffolded output looks like. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap, but the missing behavioral and usage context is significant.

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 provides some meaning for the 'agent' parameter by embedding it in the target path, but the 'force' parameter is entirely unexplained. The description adds partial value but does not fully clarify both 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 names a distinct resource ('per-agent adapter directory') with a concrete location, distinguishing it from sibling tools like keystone_new_guide or keystone_new_sensor. It clearly states what the tool creates.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose this over other keystone_new_* tools, or any exclusions. The existence of sibling tools makes this lack of differentiation a clear gap.

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