Bootstrap project

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: idempotency ('existing files are never overwritten'), conditional install of the destructive-command guard only if missing, the fact that skills load only at session start, and the 'never calls install_guard again once it's there' behavior. This is rich, non-obvious context beyond what any schema could encode.

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 dense paragraph, but every sentence adds a unique behavioral or usage fact. It front-loads the main action and then covers edge cases (guard idempotence, session restart). Slightly long, but the complexity of the tool warrants it; no filler words are present.

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 (5 params, profiles, skill installation, guard checks, session note) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: it explains the next_steps output, preconditions (collect brief in chat), and post-conditions (restart required). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral mapping beyond the schema: profile determines docs/ and skill installation (S vs M/L), stack drives .gitignore and permissions, and vision is used in the brief. This clarifies how parameters influence outcomes, though it doesn't add syntax details. The extra value justifies a 4.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Materialize a new project skeleton in one call' and enumerates concrete artifacts (.gitignore, .editorconfig, .claude/, docs/, Auto-memory). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_website or install_skill by framing it as a one-call project bootstrapper that also installs skills and a guard.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Collect the brief (name/stack/profile/vision) in chat first, then call.' It also explains when to use the S profile vs M/L ('S skips it and goes straight to code'), instructs to offer skill picks via AskUserQuestion rather than installing the whole catalog, and notes the session restart requirement for new projects. This provides clear context and alternatives.

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