gavel_init

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions installation and registration side effects, but omits important details like idempotency, error handling on invalid input, or potential overwriting of existing configurations.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the list of effects could be formatted for easier scanning (e.g., bullets), but the single sentence structure is acceptable.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and error conditions. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success message, configuration details) or what happens on failure. This is a gap for a tool that modifies workspace state.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'existing' for the 'from' parameter, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions for either parameter.

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 Gavel from an existing gavel.yaml, listing specific actions (install Bazel aspects, register dependencies, set up .bazelrc). This distinguishes it from siblings which handle different phases like validation or trends.

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?

Usage is implied: you need an existing gavel.yaml. But no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like gavel_validate or gavel_arch, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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