atelierb_create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds that the tool creates subdirectories ('bdp, lang, and src'), which is useful context. However, it does not mention what happens if the project already exists, whether permissions are required, or what the success/error response looks like. It provides some behavioral insight but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action, resource, and outcome. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score.

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 simple creation tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and resulting structure. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention project_type options, but those are already in the schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for both project_name and project_type. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The directory structure mention is about the project outcome, not the parameters.

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 action: 'Create a new Atelier B project' with a specific resource (project) and scope (in the workspace). It also details the directory structure ('with bdp, lang, and src subdirectories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like atelierb_remove_project or atelierb_add_component.

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 implies usage for creating a new project, and the context is clear given the tool's name and siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if a project already exists) or mention alternatives like listing existing projects. This is a minor gap, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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