diffci_init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete artifacts written, which signals a mutating scaffolding operation. However, it says nothing about idempotency, what happens to pre-existing files on re-run (that semantics lives only in the 'force' schema field), whether it touches Git state, or what it returns on success/partial failure.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, enumerating only the artifacts created. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 seven-parameter mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers only what is produced, not prerequisites, re-run safety, or observable results. It is adequate to understand the tool's intent but leaves enough behavioral gaps that an agent could misuse it in an already-initialized repo.

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 all seven flags are already documented with defaults and target paths in the schema. The description adds no mapping between its enumerated artifacts and the corresponding switches (mcp, hook, skill, workflow, verificationWorkflow), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Seed') and an enumerated resource set: agent instruction files, MCP server configs, the diffci-verify skill, and the pre-push hook. This clearly separates it from all siblings, which are verify/check/select/run tools. It falls short of a 5 only because it never states the scope framing ('first-time setup of a repo') that would make the distinction explicit rather than inferred.

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?

'Seed a repository' hints at initialization, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. must be a Git repo), no guidance on re-running in an already-seeded repo, and no reference to the diffci_verify/diffci_check siblings it presumably precedes. An agent must infer the entire usage context from the verb.

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