init_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the folder structure created, that INDEX and TIMELINE are registered, that all agent-created project files default to this location, and that a path is returned. It does not cover permissions, overwrite behavior for existing projects, or failure modes, keeping it from a 5.

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 three tightly written sentences with zero filler. The primary action (creating the project folder) is front-loaded, followed by side effects and the return value, 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail. The description covers creation, registration, default file storage, and next-step path usage, but the meaning of the required `name` parameter is left largely implicit. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is almost complete but has a notable gap.

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 0% and the sole parameter `name` has no schema description. The description shows `projects/<slug>/`, which implies the required name is turned into a slug, but it never explicitly states what the parameter represents, its format, or constraints. This partial compensation supports a 3.

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 (create) and resource (new project folder `projects/<slug>/` in Knowledge Dir with artifacts/ and design/) plus secondary actions (register INDEX + TIMELINE). It is clearly distinct from siblings like setup_knowledge or log_timeline, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from those tools, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

It establishes clear usage context: every file the agent creates in the project defaults to this folder, and the returned path should be used for later steps. This tells the agent when to call it (before creating project files), but there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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