Scaffold Academic Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and it does disclose the creation set and the two conditional enrichment paths (university pattern extraction from PDF, logo copying). However, it is silent on the most consequential behavior: what the `overwrite` parameter does to pre-existing files, whether the operation is destructive, and whether any external/permission requirements apply.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a tight bullet list of artifacts and conditionals. No filler sentences, though the bullets could surface the required-vs-optional distinction more economically.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 15-parameter bootstrap tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description omits the overwrite semantics and the purpose of most authoring parameters. An agent could call it correctly only for the three required fields and would be guessing on everything else.

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 coverage is 0% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and only does so for sample_pdf_path and logo_path (plus an implicit nod to `format` via main.typ/main.tex/main.md). Ten-plus parameters — project_path, title, author, course, advisor, institution, document_type, overwrite, and the research_problem/objectives/methodology group — get no explanation of their effect on generated output.

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 concrete verb and resource (initializes the complete directory/file tree of an academic project) and enumerates the artifacts produced: capitulos/, figuras/, abnt.spec.json, SPEC.md, referencias.bib, and the main file in the chosen format. It is clearly distinguishable from check_structure or compile_tcc, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It never says when to use this rather than init_research_spec, check_structure, or audit_research_spec, nor does it state prerequisites (does the project_path need to exist? empty?). The conditional clauses ('Se sample_pdf_path for fornecido...') describe behavior, not usage selection, so the agent is left to infer this is a first/bootstrap step.

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