pce_init

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool builds an index and navigation context, that it establishes context rather than answering code questions, and that it must succeed before dependent tools are used. It does not, however, describe side effects on disk, persistence, idempotency, or what success/failure returns, which would make the behavioral profile more complete.

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 well structured under Purpose, When to use, Best practice, and Avoid, with each section front-loaded and every sentence adding operational value. It is sufficiently concise and avoids redundancy while covering usage, sequencing, and scope.

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 one-parameter initialization tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to call it, its prerequisite status, and its relationship to siblings. It is slightly incomplete in not stating what a successful initialization returns or whether any external state is modified, but overall it is strong enough for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, project_path, is already described as 'Absolute path to the target project root.' The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond restating the notion of a 'target project,' so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific action ('Bind a target project and initialize the PCE runtime') and the resource affected, and it explains the purpose by saying it builds 'the index and navigation context required by query / impact / sync.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly warning not to use it as a code query tool.

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 conditions for use: call when entering a new project or when PCE is first needed, and do not call pce_query, pce_impact, pce_sync, or edit tools before pce_init succeeds. It also provides best practice context, saying it is typically called once per session and only again when switching projects or retrying after failure.

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