Init CLAUDE.md roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read source and the scoped write ('inside a managed block'), which is meaningful, but it does not clarify idempotency, whether CLAUDE.md is created if missing, potential overwrite of existing managed content, or error behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and target, with no wasted words. The managed-block qualifier earns its place by clarifying the write scope.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is close to sufficient for correct invocation: it states the source, target, and scoping. Minor gaps remain around idempotency and what happens if the roles note or CLAUDE.md does not exist, but these are not blocking.

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% (cwd is documented as 'project path; defaults to the server's working directory'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only tying cwd to 'the project' implicitly. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource: read a fixed roles note and write it into the project's CLAUDE.md within a managed block. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling note CRUD tools (get_note, update_note, patch_note) and search/commit, which operate on different targets or purposes.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description (initializing roles into CLAUDE.md) but not explicitly stated. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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