yaaif_mcp_scaffold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'scaffold' and 'into the workspace,' without disclosing whether existing files are overwritten, whether workspace_root is required, or what side effects occur. For a file-generating mutation, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the action and object are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a high-level summary, though it remains under-specified in content.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no usage guidance, the description only conveys high-level intent. An agent lacks enough context to invoke the tool correctly with its 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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (name, language, target_dir, workspace_root). An agent cannot infer what values are expected or how the parameters relate to the scaffolding operation.

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 states a specific verb ('Scaffold') and resource ('a new MCP server'), and identifies the source ('official YAA\F templates') and destination ('the workspace'). This makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear and distinguishable from sibling MCP tools by its scaffolding action, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as yaaif_mcp_link_or_create, yaaif_mcp_server_refresh, or yaaif_mcp_deployment_create. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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