scaffold_markets_angular_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the output location, but says nothing about whether an existing targetDir is overwritten, whether network access is needed, or what runInstall=false implies (the project is 'ready-to-run' yet dependencies may not be installed).

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 action and stack, followed by the output artifact. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient, and it does communicate the produced artifact and its path. However, it omits overwrite behavior, parameter semantics, and prerequisites for a mutation-style scaffolding tool with 3 parameters.

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 only 33% (just targetDir), and the description adds nothing about the undocumented `name` pattern/constraints or `runInstall`. Worse, 'ready-to-run project' arguably conflicts with the runInstall default of false, leaving the agent unclear on installed state.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource (scaffold an Angular app) with the exact stack enumerated and the output location stated. It differentiates from scaffold_markets_react_app implicitly via the framework name, but never explicitly contrasts the two, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no prerequisites (Node version, network, existing directory state). The existence of a React sibling means the agent must choose between frameworks, and the description gives no criteria for that choice.

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