init_project

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

Even without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it creates files in specific locations, handles missing docs automatically, and respects the overwrite parameter. No contradictions or hidden effects are implied.

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 concise, using three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, customization options, and behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, customization via parameters, and conditional behavior. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, it is largely complete for an initialization tool.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the dual purpose of project_path (external docs) and that omitting 'files' triggers creation of all missing internal required docs. This adds value above the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool initializes documentation for a new project using templates, specifying internal (PRD, Architecture) and external (README, CHANGELOG, QUICKSTART) docs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lint or validate.

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 explicit context: when project_path is given, external docs are also created; the 'files' parameter selects specific documents; without 'files', all missing internal required docs are created. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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