mindbase_init_project

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

With no annotations providing safety/behavior details, the description carries the full burden and does a good job. It discloses idempotency ('Idempotent'), a refusal behavior ('refuses to overwrite existing project'), and the exact artifacts that will be created. This goes beyond the minimal 'create project' statement by describing the concrete output structure and a key behavioral guardrail.

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?

Two dense, high-value sentences. The first states the core purpose and the exact layout; the second communicates an important behavioral constraint. No filler or redundant phrasing, and the critical non-overwrite behavior is placed right at the end for emphasis.

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 scaffolding tool with 100% parameter-documented schema and no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what happens, what is created, and the failure condition if the project already exists. Missing details like return values or template effects are not necessary here because the schema covers parameters and the tool's surface area is small.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but no extra explanation is needed because the schema already documents name, mission, and template well.

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 ('Scaffold'), a precise resource ('a new MindBase project'), and enumerates the exact v2 layout it creates. The word 'new' and the listed file/directory structure clearly distinguish this initializer from sibling tools that operate on existing projects (e.g., mindbase_load_project, mindbase_contribute). This is a strong purpose statement with no ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when creating a brand-new project. It includes a strong when-not signal by stating it 'refuses to overwrite existing project,' so an agent can infer this is inappropriate for re-initializing or updating an existing project. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context and wording give enough guidance.

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