init_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, preconditions, and success criteria. It merely lists what will be generated but does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, whether network access is required, what happens on repeated runs, or any error conditions. For a tool that creates a comprehensive infrastructure skeleton, these are critical gaps.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's function. There is no redundant or filler content, and the key components are listed in parentheses for quick scanning. Given its brevity, every word earns its place.

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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is far too brief to provide adequate context for correct usage. It lacks information about parameter effects, expected outcomes, or how to use the tool within a workflow, especially when considering the low schema coverage.

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 only 38% (3/8 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not explain any of the parameters (ci_cd, cloud, language, target_path, etc.) nor map the listed components to specific parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the meaning of several parameters undocumented.

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: 'Genera el esqueleto completo de infraestructura agéntica en un proyecto' with a specific list of generated components (locks, tasks, comms, session audit, protocols, vault, MCP skeleton). This goes beyond the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_file or ecosystem_init by specifying a comprehensive project skeleton.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the user to infer the appropriate context. No mention of sibling tools or when a different tool might be more suitable.

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