Init Workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the created paths and that a Cursor config snippet is returned, but says nothing about idempotency, whether existing files are overwritten, permissions, or side effects of setting .active-project.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses; the action and its outputs are stated up front. It is efficient, though very terse for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 tool that creates a directory tree, sets an active project, and returns a config snippet, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits idempotency, overwrite behavior, and how it differs from init_project, leaving key decisions to inference.

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 83% (high), so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (初始化/initialize) and concrete resources (narrative/projects/{id}/.narrative/, .active-project, Cursor config snippet). An agent can tell roughly what the tool produces, but there is no differentiation from the sibling init_project, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only states what happens; it gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and does not distinguish this from init_project or set_active_project. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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