ctxray_init_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is produced and the analysis behind it, but omits critical mutation traits: whether existing CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md files are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, and what write=false actually yields. For a file-writing generator, overwrite behavior is essential disclosure.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and names all outputs and inputs with no filler. It is efficient, though the stacked technical modifiers (PageRank hotspots, circular dependency diagnostics) make it slightly heavy.

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 two-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is generated and the basis for it. However, given no annotations, it should disclose the destructive/overwrite implications of writing files to disk, which is the largest remaining gap.

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% and both parameters (path default '.', write default true) are documented in the schema, so the description need not restate them. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (auto-generate), three concrete artifacts (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, .cursor/rules/architecture.mdc), and the data source (Dependency PageRank hotspots and circular dependency diagnostics). None of the siblings (repo_map, blast_radius, skeletonize, forensics, trace, pack) produce these files, so the tool is clearly distinguished.

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 purpose implies when it applies (bootstrapping repo-specific agent rules), but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance. It never states you should run analysis first or how this relates to the sibling tools in the workflow.

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