contentrain_init

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

The description adds a crucial behavioral warning that changes are auto-committed to git and that users should not manually create these files. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent hints. It provides actionable context about side effects.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that deliver the purpose and the key warning. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 initialization tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and risk. It could mention what happens if already initialized or what the structure contains, but the current content is sufficient for basic use.

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 full descriptions for all three parameters (stack, domains, locales), including defaults and auto-detection behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 clearly states the tool initializes a .contentrain/ structure, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contentrain_validate or contentrain_scaffold, which have different purposes.

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?

It implies this is the setup step for a project but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or references to sibling tools that could serve similar roles.

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