scaffold_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creating a directory layout with specific components (TeX, rules, placeholders) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing directories, what permissions are required, error handling, or the structure of created files. The description is functional but lacks operational 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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args section. The first sentence efficiently conveys the core functionality, and the parameter explanations are front-loaded and necessary. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more integrated rather than separate sections.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, as a creation tool with an output schema (implied by context signals), it doesn't explain return values or error conditions. The description is adequate for simple use but lacks depth for complex scenarios like handling existing directories or detailed output.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds meaningful semantics: it explains that project_name creates a directory and that base_dir is optional with a default location. This clarifies parameter roles beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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 specific action ('Create a minimal formalization project layout') and specifies the resources involved ('with TeX, rules, and placeholders'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'formalize_tex' or 'workflow_formalize_all' by focusing on initial project scaffolding rather than content processing or comprehensive workflows.

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 implies usage context through 'minimal formalization project layout' and the Args section mentions default behavior for base_dir. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quickstart_message' or 'workflow_formalize_all', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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