Init Project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the write artifacts it produces, which is real value, but it says nothing about overwrite behavior when files already exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on partial failure. The force-parameter semantics for non-empty directories live only in the schema.

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 compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. The dash-separated artifact list is dense but every element earns its place; minor cost is that 'M7 ecosystem' is undefined jargon.

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 zero-required-parameter, six-parameter scaffolding initiator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what gets created but leaves out idempotency, failure/rollback behavior and what the caller receives. Adequate but with clear gaps against the tool's complexity.

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 83%, above the high-coverage threshold, so the schema already documents force, domain, description, project_name, project_path and technologies. The description adds no additional meaning about any parameter, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

Specific verb 'Initialize' plus the resource 'complete M7 ecosystem', and it enumerates the concrete artifacts produced (Memory Bank, .cursorrules, project structure), which separates it from sibling mcp_m7_create_structure. It does not explicitly say how it differs from that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'for empty projects' gives an implicit when-to-use constraint, and the sibling list contains create_structure and project_index that a reader must differentiate on their own. No explicit alternative is named and no 'do not use if X' guidance is given beyond the empty-project hint.

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