scaffold-vtex-app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it generates manifest.json and folder structures, but does not mention whether it writes to the current directory, overwrites existing files, requires an empty directory, or any side effects. The absence of this information for a file-generating tool is a significant deficiency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the builders. It contains no filler or redundant content, though the builder list is partially redundant with the schema enum. Still, it remains concise and scannable.

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?

The tool is a generator with no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to mention what happens after generation (e.g., return value, success message, files written), whether any prerequisites exist (e.g., being inside a VTEX project, authentication), or how to verify the result. Given its complexity and the lack of structured metadata, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description repeats the builder list but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid combinations, no constraints on appName format beyond kebab-case). It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('complete VTEX IO app scaffold') and enumerates the builders it covers. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scaffold-node-service and scaffold-graphql, which target narrower scopes. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 for creating a full app scaffold with selectable builders, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the more specific siblings (e.g., 'for a node-only service use scaffold-node-service'). With multiple scaffold siblings present, the lack of explicit routing or exclusions is a notable gap.

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