create_egovframe_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions downloading official GitHub templates and applying parameters, but does not specify side effects (e.g., overwriting existing directories), required permissions, or network dependencies. This lack of detail limits transparency.

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 two sentences, directly stating the purpose and key actions. No extraneous information, front-loaded for clarity.

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 project generation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what is produced (e.g., project structure, files). It does not mention return values or post-creation state, making it incomplete for agent understanding.

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 param descriptions already explain each field. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond grouping 'projectName/groupId/DB type' as key applied settings.

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 creates a new project skeleton using the official e-government framework template, distinguishing it from the sibling tool list_egovframe_templates which lists templates.

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 description implies usage for creating projects with official templates, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. the sibling tool or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling tool's purpose is complementary, so no conflict.

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