bootstrap_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key side-effect traits: the operation is 'atomic,' 'additive and idempotent,' and never overwrites existing artifacts. It also covers the non-obvious merge behavior of `.project-bootstrap-questions.yaml` into the interview set. It stops short of stating permissions needed or the response contract, which matters for a multi-file scaffold, but the riskiest unknowns (overwrite behavior and artifact set) are explicitly resolved.

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 sentence front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then a colon-list of artifacts and em-dash side effects. Every clause adds a distinct behavioral fact (what's created, idempotency, YAML merge) with zero fluff. Slightly long, but the content density justifies the length for a multi-artifact operation.

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 4-parameter scaffold with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, artifact set, side-effect guarantees, and the custom-questions merge. The one gap is the return value: without an output schema, it never says what the tool returns (beyond the auto_reindex hint in the schema). That is minor given everything else is covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema with the merge rule for `.project-bootstrap-questions.yaml` and the link between project_sections to get_bootstrap_questions answers, which affects which keys the agent must supply. That contextual enrichment justifies a 4.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Atomically scaffold a brand-new .context/ directory' — then enumerates the exact artifacts created (decisions/, sessions/, two governance docs, project.md, ADR-00001). This scope cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like write_project (single file), create_adr (single ADR), and index_project_context (reindex only). An agent can tell this is the whole-project initializer without opening any sibling schema.

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 condition 'for a project that doesn't have one yet' gives a clear when-to-use trigger, and the idempotency note ('artifacts that already exist are skipped, not overwritten') clarifies behavior when state is partial. It also references the prerequisite flow, tying interview answers to `get_bootstrap_questions`. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like write_project for updating existing projects, so exclusions are implied rather than explicit.

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