setup_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it writes a POWERBI_PROJECT_DIR line into station/config.env, performs a backup, builds a skeleton, and is idempotent. That is substantive side-effect disclosure; only error/permission behavior is left unstated.

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?

Front-loads the primary action and location, then side effects, then the skeleton contents in a compact, scannable list. Dense telegraphic phrasing costs a little clarity but there is no filler.

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. The description covers location, side effects, idempotency, and generated artifacts; the main gap is the missing distinction from the sibling init_project.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: it names the default (workspace/ in the checkout) and the rule that an alternate path must be outside the repo source area, adding meaning the bare string schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Thiết lập thư mục dự án' = set up project directory) and enumerates the concrete artifacts created (projects/, knowledge/ 4 axes, templates/, INDEX.md, TIMELINE.md). It does not differentiate itself from the confusingly-similar sibling 'init_project', which an agent could easily mistake for this one.

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 gives a placement constraint (a custom path must lie outside the repo source area) but never states when this tool should be chosen over alternatives such as init_project or knowledge_status. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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