scaffold_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the two most important traits: the return is file content only ("write it yourself") and there is a side effect of registering the component locally. It stops short of disclaimers about overwrites, idempotency, or failure modes.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and artifact, with the surprising "returns content only" caveat placed last for emphasis. 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?

For a six-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers the call trigger and return behavior but leaves the parameter contract entirely undocumented. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 six parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions any of them, leaving title, importPath, description, and referenceComponent completely unexplained. Only componentName/componentSource are faintly implied by the workflow.

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?

States a specific verb (generates) and artifact (a CSF3 *.stories.tsx file) plus a secondary effect (remembers the component locally). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like remember_component or list_stories.

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?

"Call after creating a new component" gives an explicit trigger point, and the note about other tools seeing it before Storybook is redeployed clarifies the timing rationale. It does not, however, name an alternative for the overlapping remember_component behavior.

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