prepare_ai_onboarding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output artifacts but does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether it creates or mutates project state, what permissions or project state are required, or what side effects occur.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and outputs immediately, and every phrase contributes to the little context it provides.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need full explanation, but the description omits the onboarding workflow context, the relationship to apply_ai_onboarding, and the meaning of project_dir. With no annotations and no parameter descriptions, those omissions leave the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 single required parameter, project_dir, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about whether it expects a project root, an absolute path, or an existing validated project.

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 states a specific verb, 'Return', and two concrete outputs: source-bound evidence and a strict proposal schema. It is clearer than a tautology, but it never mentions onboarding or distinguishes this preparation step from siblings like apply_ai_onboarding or auto_onboard_and_convert.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to call it, or which sibling should be used instead. The phrase 'to the host AI' hints at workflow context but does not specify the triggering conditions or prerequisites.

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