Create project workspace

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

Annotations declare it is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tree is the 'standard' one and goes under the user's /storage workspace, plus mentions a dryRun-capable schema, but doesn't say whether directories are skipped/overwritten if they already exist, which matters for a repeated-scaffolding tool.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The directory listing is information-dense rather than padding, and the workspace location is stated at the end where it belongs.

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 mutation with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers what gets created well but is silent on idempotency/idempotent re-runs, permission needs, and how dryRun interacts with the tree. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent would want.

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 67%, above the midpoint. The description implies the project parameter names a directory and that a storage workspace is the root, adding marginal meaning, but says nothing about dryRun or profile beyond what schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create the standard project directory tree') and even enumerates the exact directories created. This distinguishes it from sibling setup tools, though it doesn't name any alternative directory-oriented 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools like ris_list_project_files or ris_plan_run. The agent gets no help deciding when this scaffolder is the right call vs other workspace operations.

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