project_ensure

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: idempotency ('idempotently adopt or initialize'), non-copying of source code ('never copies raw source code'), and deduplication of existing knowledge ('adopted, not duplicated'). This goes well beyond what the schema states.

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?

Four purposeful sentences, each carrying a distinct point: purpose, artifact creation and non-copying, adoption semantics, and tool-reference statuses. No filler, front-loaded with the main action, though the final sentence could arguably be merged.

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?

For a tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and important behavioral constraints (idempotency, no source copying). Preconditions like being a Git repository are implied by 'Git project' and the project_root description. Slight gap: no explanation of what happens on first run versus subsequent runs beyond idempotency.

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 already provides meaningful descriptions for all three parameters (coverage 100%), including 'Any path inside the Git project' and 'Project-specific capability references to merge'. The description adds context about Git facts and entry points but not parameter-level syntax, so baseline 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 verb 'adopt or initialize' with the resource 'Git project for Brainlehr' clearly states the action and scope, and the description further specifies concrete outputs (.brainlehr.json capsule, project knowledge root). It is distinct from sibling tools like project_attach or project_boundary, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are named; usage must be inferred from 'adopt or initialize'. The description implies this is the setup/ensure tool for Git projects but doesn't state when to choose it over related project tools such as project_change or project_attach.

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