plugin-scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates files and directories (src/, test/, package.json, README.md, CLAUDE.md, GitHub workflows) and warns against existing projects, implying potential overwrites. However, it lacks explicit details on prerequisites (e.g., Node.js), whether it runs npm install, or any network access for workflows, which would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and output files, then immediately adding usage constraints. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core aspects: what it does, what it creates, and when to use it. It lacks guidance on post-scaffold steps (e.g., 'run npm install') or behavior with optional features, but it is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no new information beyond the schema; it reiterates the name and description requirements and the 'no metalsmith- prefix' rule already present in the schema. For features and outputPath, it offers no additional context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it scaffolds a complete Metalsmith plugin, listing specific files (src/, test/, package.json, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'for NEW plugins in an empty directory' and warns against using on existing projects, ensuring no confusion with audit, config, or template tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use only for NEW plugins in an empty directory — never against an existing project.' It also instructs to pass the exact plugin name without adding a 'metalsmith-' prefix and notes that both name and description are required, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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