rrt_initInitialize release tool configuration: choose a target format, preview the setup, then apply changes to your repository.
Form to initialize rrt configuration — pick target format, preview, then apply.
Renders a UI widget for a human to fill in — if you are an agent working from a
shell, run rrt init directly instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool renders a UI widget for a human and that the 'apply' step is part of the human workflow, not the agent's tool invocation.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first explains the form flow, the second explicitly warns agents to use the CLI instead. No wasted words.
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?
With zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the tool's purpose, its human-only nature, and the direct shell alternative. Nothing is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter gap for the description to fill. The description mentions 'target format' and 'preview' as conceptual steps, but since no parameters exist, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: it initializes rrt configuration via an interactive form. It even distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is a UI widget for a human, not a shell action.
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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: if you are an agent working from a shell, run `rrt init` directly. This clearly routes the agent to the correct alternative, which is the strongest possible usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.