Initialize a project by creating and binding a directory to set up a shared memory space for team collaboration.
用户明确要求创建项目后调用；创建并绑定目录，不自动上传文件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| directory | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates and binds a directory and does not auto-upload files, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether an existing directory is overwritten, whether the project is persisted, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool, this is a moderate gap.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the trigger condition and then states the core action and a key exclusion. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
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 2-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and a key behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics and side effects, which an agent would need to call it correctly in edge cases. It's adequate but not complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'directory' binding, which gives some meaning to the directory parameter, but it doesn't explain what 'name' should be (e.g., unique project name, display name) or what format the directory should take (path, existing vs. new). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.
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 ('创建项目' = create project) and resource ('项目' = project), and adds a scoping condition ('用户明确要求创建项目后调用' = call only after user explicitly requests project creation). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it binds a directory and does not auto-upload files. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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 gives a clear trigger condition: only call when the user explicitly asks to create a project. It also states what the tool does not do ('不自动上传文件'), which helps an agent avoid misusing it for file uploads. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like project_bind, but the context is clear enough for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.