kirikiri_kagex_init_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only mentions copying and writing operations without details on overwrite behavior, file system modifications, or dependencies. The explicit 'no EXE/DLL' is useful but minimal. It does not warn about potential data loss or the need for template_dir, leaving behavioral transparency insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with a clear verb-object structure. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes a parenthetical clarification about EXE/DLL. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the project initialization workflow, return values, or critical behaviors like overwriting and scenario peeking. Users are left without enough context to use the tool safely or effectively.

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 schema covers only 50% of parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. It does not compensate for undocumented params like maker, game_id, or template_dir. The high-level mention of 'text assets' and 'Config/AppConfig' loosely maps to some params but lacks specificity, providing little value beyond the schema.

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 copies KAGeXpress Template text assets and writes Config/AppConfig highlights, with a notable exclusion of EXE/DLL files. It distinguishes from sibling tools like locate_template or apply_config, though the term 'highlights' is somewhat vague. Overall, the purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., locating the template first) or contrast with sibling tools like kirikiri_kagex_apply_config. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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