aimfp_init

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the tool performs atomic creation of directories, databases, and templates. This goes beyond annotations by stating it is atomic and mechanical, clarifying the nature of the write operations. It does not contradict 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the key information (phase, orchestration, actions) and efficiently communicates scope and nature. Every word adds value.

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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (atomic creation, mechanical nature). However, it could be more specific about what 'databases with schemas' and 'templates' entail, and whether there are prerequisites or error behaviors. Nonetheless, it is sufficiently complete for an initialization tool.

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 100% with one parameter (project_root) fully described in the schema. The description adds general context that the tool uses this root for creation, but does not provide additional parameter-level details (e.g., format requirements, behavior if path already exists). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameter.

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 it is a 'Phase 1 mechanical setup orchestrator for project initialization' and lists specific actions (creates directories, databases with schemas, templates). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_project' or 'create_state_database' by framing it as an atomic orchestration of multiple setup steps. The phrasing 'No deep logic - pure mechanical operations' further clarifies its scope.

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 implies it is the first step in project setup ('Phase 1') and should be used for mechanical initialization. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives for specific scenarios (e.g., if a user only needs a single component). The context suggests a clear use case but lacks exclusions.

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