init_projectInitialize a game narrative project directory to set up the .narrative/ structure. This enables managing story consistency, dynamic runs, and meta elements.
初始化游戏叙事项目目录（.narrative/）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 项目 ID | |
| title | Yes | 项目标题 | |
| description | No | ||
| scopes_in_use | No | ||
| capability_preset | No | 能力预设，如 rog_meta_dynamic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says that a `.narrative/` directory is initialized, without stating whether existing content is overwritten, what permissions or side effects apply, or what the tool returns. For an initialization/mutation tool, this leaves important behavior opaque.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though its extreme brevity contributes to the broader completeness gaps rather than being a structural flaw in itself.
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 an initialization tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain project identity requirements, directory initialization side effects, relationship to other project-management siblings, or what happens after initialization.
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 only 60%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema for required fields like `id` and `title`, or for less obvious parameters such as `scopes_in_use` and `capability_preset`, which are not described in the schema either.
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 clear verb and resource: initialize a game narrative project directory, specifically `.narrative/`. It is understandable without opening the schema. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as `init_workspace`, `set_active_project`, or `list_projects`, which may overlap in project setup/management.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites such as whether a project ID must be unique or whether an existing directory will be overwritten. Sibling tools like `init_workspace` make explicit usage guidance especially important.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.