scaffold_markets_react_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output location convention (<targetDir>/<name>) and that the result is ready-to-run. However, it omits critical mutation-side behavior: whether an existing directory is overwritten or an error is raised, and what happens when runInstall is false versus true.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the output location as a compact follow-up. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more. It adequately conveys what is generated and where, but leaves undoc'd the runInstall parameter and the failure/overwrite semantics a scaffolding tool needs.

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 only 33% (only targetDir is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the relationship between the two required params via the <targetDir>/<name> path convention, but it says nothing about runInstall or the name pattern constraint.

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 (scaffold) and resource (React + Vite app) and enumerates the preloaded contents (Markets design system, dock manager, AG Grid, theme toggle). The 'React' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling scaffold_markets_angular_app, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus the Angular sibling, no prerequisites (e.g., target directory must not already exist, Node/Vite availability), and no guidance on the runInstall flag's effect on workflow. The agent must infer selection purely from the framework name.

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