init

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes behavior: it analyzes a project directory and suggests configuration. It lists return values (stack info, suggested content, profiles, instructions). It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but for a suggestion tool that is acceptable.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence header followed by bullet points. Every word contributes. It is front-loaded and structured with WHEN TO USE and RETURNS sections, making it easy to scan.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, usage guidelines, and return values. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

The only parameter 'project_dir' is already described in the schema as 'Project directory to analyze'. The description adds no extra semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Suggest a .corbat.json configuration for a project.' The verb 'suggest' combined with the specific resource '.corbat.json configuration' makes it distinct from siblings like 'validate' or 'profiles', which do different things.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists scenarios: setting up Corbat, customizing coding standards, seeing available profiles. This provides clear context. Although it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the positive cases are well-covered.

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