keystone_new_corpus

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, and it does reveal the file creation path and content scope. However, it doesn't mention what `force` does, whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, or what other side effects occur during scaffolding.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and target path, and the second clarifies what belongs in a corpus. Each sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 covers purpose, placement, and content categorization, and the output schema can convey return values. But it omits `force` semantics, prerequisites (e.g., an existing harness), and failure behavior, leaving notable gaps for a creation tool with no annotation support.

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 only gives meaning to `name` via the path `<name>.md`; the `force` parameter is not mentioned at all. This is insufficient for a two-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scaffold a new corpus markdown under `.keystone/harness/corpus/<name>.md`.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by defining corpus entries as reasoning/background context and contrasting them with guides, actions, playbooks, and skills.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for domain notes, architecture decisions, and idioms. It also tells when not to use it by directing constraints to `guides/` and procedures to `actions/`, `playbooks/`, and `skills/`, naming the alternatives.

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