totem_init_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a directory and DB, and the phrase 'if missing' implies non-destructive behavior. However, it does not describe permissions, idempotency guarantees, or consequences of re-running in an already-initialized project.

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 appropriately concise: two short sentences plus a compact args block. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information without padding.

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 simple one-parameter init tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating git-root dependence, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates well for the single parameter: it states 'project' is optional, describes it as a project root path, and adds the valuable detail that it is auto-detected from git root when omitted.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Initialize totem for a project' and specifies what it creates ('.totem/ directory and DB'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling memory tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 first-time setup by saying 'Initialize totem for a project' and explains the optional project argument, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus not using it, nor mention prerequisites like being inside a git repository when project is omitted.

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