Initialize Guard

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral burden; it does disclose two useful traits (confirmation required, existing state protected by default). It omits what artifacts are written, where, and whether non-force re-runs are idempotent or fail.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the safety trait comes early. Brevity is appropriate, though it verges on under-specification for a 5-parameter init tool.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and two parameters (no_wait, wait_ms) are unexplained anywhere. For an initializing write tool the description leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly or anticipate results.

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 60% and the description adds no detail on any parameter: no_wait and wait_ms are undocumented in both schema and description, and 'explicit confirmation' only restates the existing confirm field description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Guard artifacts'), plus a scope trait that separates it from verification/review siblings. However, 'Guard artifacts' is unexplained jargon, so an agent still doesn't know concretely what gets written.

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 phrasing 'after explicit confirmation' and 'existing baselines are protected by default' implies initialization is a guarded, deliberate step, but no alternatives are named and no explicit condition selects this tool over codapult_guard_propose or codapult_guard_next_action.

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