knitbrain_onboard

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

Discloses two-step behavior: first call scans repo and imports past sessions, returns questions; second call writes charter and constraints. Informs that agent must ask user in chat. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it covers the core workflow but omits error handling or idempotency details. Still above average.

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?

Concise single paragraph of ~70 words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence contributes meaning: explains two-step workflow, action required from agent (ask user), and frequency (once per project). No unnecessary words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, description covers workflow well: two-step process, what each step does, and that it impacts future sessions. Missing mention of 'create' parameter in main description, but schema fills gap. Overall sufficient for agent to use 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?

Schema descriptions for both parameters add value: 'answers' is explained as 5 interview answers in order, and 'create' (not mentioned in main description) is described as gap names for composing skills. Main description only mentions 'answers', but schema covers both. With 100% schema coverage, this is good.

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?

Clearly states it is the 'front door' for onboarding a project into the brain. Describes the two-step process: initial call without args scans and imports, then second call with answers writes Project Charter. Distinguishes from sibling tools as a one-time setup tool.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step instructions: call with no args first, ask user the returned questions in chat, then call again with answers. Mentions 'run once per project after setup.' Does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but context is clear for a front-door tool.

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