generate_scaffold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creation of files/directories, but omits critical details: whether it overwrites existing files, whether it requires a clean directory, side effects, or dependency installation. For a scaffold tool, these are important behavioral aspects missing from the description.

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 concise sentences in Korean, front-loaded with the core action. No filler words; every phrase adds value. The description is immediately understandable and efficient.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and outputs but lacks context on return values, error conditions, and workflow integration with sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, with both parameters well-documented. The description adds slight context ('with selected modules' and 'automatically creates project directory, module files, package.json, README.md'), but this largely reinforces rather than extends schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema handles the semantic load.

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 the tool generates a project structure with selected modules, listing specific outputs (directory, module files, package.json, README). This is a specific verb+resource combination that inherently differentiates it from sibling tools like list_modules (listing) and resolve_dependencies (resolving dependencies).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having selected modules via list_modules), when not to use it, or typical workflow context. The description only states what it does, without any usage instructions.

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