Initialize OMNISTATE state governance and pre-commit guardrails in the current workspace to enforce scope and anti-laziness checks and obtain commit clearance before Git commits.
Initialize OMNISTATE state governance and pre-commit guardrail in the current workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | Whether to overwrite existing config if present. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool initializes governance and a pre-commit guardrail, but does not describe what files or configuration are created, whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what happens when configuration already exists beyond the overwrite parameter.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and usage details assessed elsewhere.
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 initialization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about what the tool sets up, prerequisites, and side effects. It gives the high-level purpose but leaves meaningful operational context unstated.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter 'overwrite' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('Initialize') and resources ('OMNISTATE state governance and pre-commit guardrail') in the current workspace. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like omnistate_begin or omnistate_status.
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 a setup use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus lifecycle siblings (begin, status, audit, etc.). It also does not mention prerequisites, whether initialization should run before omnistate_begin, or when overwrite should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.