create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key side effect: 'Sets the new project as the active session workspace.' It also specifies the exact file/directory structure. However, it doesn't mention failure conditions (e.g., if parent_dir doesn't exist or project already exists), permissions, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a partial disclosure—better than a bare 'Creates a project' but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action, target path, and key outputs; the second discloses the side effect. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 scaffolding tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies the exact artifacts created and the session side effect. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but those are not essential for a creation tool's basic invocation. The description covers everything an agent needs to know to call it correctly and understand the outcome.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (name, parent_dir). The description references them in the path template but doesn't add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., validation rules for name are in schema). Baseline 3 applies because the schema already 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 states a specific verb ('scaffold') and a specific resource ('a new KiCad project'), and details the exact directory structure and file contents (.kicad_pro, .kicad_sch, libs/, manufacturing/). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like load_project (loading vs creating) and detect_kicad (detection). No ambiguity.

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 context is clear: use this to create a new project. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is obvious given the sibling list (all other operations assume an existing project). It could have stated 'use load_project to open existing projects', but the description's focus on scaffolding suffices for a creation tool.

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