Assemble the kickoff file plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses that the server writes nothing (Model C, D2/D6), only returns content and paths. It explains idempotent behavior (already-present files get 'review'/'skip', never overwritten), and reports missing, open_questions, warnings. This is thorough and transparent.

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 relatively concise, packing key details (files assembled, parameters, return fields, idempotency, server behavior) into a few sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Returns { files: [...] }' is clear but could be slightly tighter, but overall well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters including nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what files are produced, conditions for readiness, idempotency, and the return object structure (files, missing, open_questions, warnings). It could briefly mention the bundled templates source, but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to use.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: 'answers keyed by token id', 'detected as brownfield pre-fill fallback', 'existing as agent inventory for idempotent re-runs'. It also explains the return structure beyond schema. This adds significant value over the schema alone.

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 explicitly states the tool assembles multiple template files (four _template.md copies, decision-log.md, AGENT_CONVENTIONS.md) from bundled templates, with specific steps 2–5. The verb 'assemble' is precise, and the resource (kickoff plan files) is clearly identified. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like kickoff_questions (gathering answers) or evaluate_gate (evaluation).

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 indicates when to supply parameters like project_type, answers, detected (brownfield), and existing (inventory). It also explains the readiness condition (missing empty) and idempotency behavior. Although it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is clear within the sibling set, and usage guidance is adequate.

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