bootstrap_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists specific side effects: setting up .agents/skills, loading config, using global cache, installing missing skills, and updating .agents/skills-manager.json. This is transparent about the write operations. It does not mention potential caveats like overwriting existing files or requiring network access, but the disclosed actions are substantial and unlikely to mislead.

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 sentence but efficiently packs all key information: the action (bootstrap), the scope (new or existing project workspace), and the specific steps. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids filler. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and artifacts affected. It does not describe return values or error scenarios, but the list of setup steps provides a solid understanding for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The presence of siblings adds context, and this description clearly positions bootstrap_project as the comprehensive setup action.

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 coverage is 100%: both configPath and projectPath have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'loading personal skill collection & project config' which may relate to configPath, but this is not explicit. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: automatically bootstrap a new or existing project workspace. It lists concrete actions (setting up .agents/skills, loading personal skill collection & project config, using global cache, installing missing skills, updating version metadata tracker) which distinguish it from sibling tools like install_skills or sync_skills by being the comprehensive setup operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when bootstrapping a new or existing project workspace. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the phrase 'bootstrap a new or existing project workspace' implies it is the go-to for full setup, leaving install_skills for targeted installs. However, explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., 'for single-skill installs, use install_skills instead') is missing.

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