docmgr_init

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

The description states 'State-modifying (creates files and directories)' and lists specific outputs (config, baselines, optionally documentation structure). This adds significant context beyond annotations, which only provide idempotentHint=true. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and uses a clear structure with sections for 'Use when', 'Result', 'Mode', and 'Typical workflow'. It packs useful information without being verbose, though the parameter section is missing.

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?

Despite having a output schema (not shown), the description lacks critical details about parameters and return values. For a tool with 7 parameters and state-modifying behavior, the description is incomplete, leaving the agent to guess about most inputs and outputs.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters except for 'mode' by referencing 'existing' and 'bootstrap' in the Modes section. Other parameters like project_path, platform, exclude_patterns, docs_path, sources, and use_gitignore are entirely undocumented. This is a critical gap.

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 initializes doc-manager for a project, with two modes for existing or new docs. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like docmgr_assess_quality and docmgr_detect_changes.

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 explicitly says 'Use when: Setting up doc-manager for the first time in a project' and 'Typical workflow: Run once at project setup, before any other doc-manager tools.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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