memshelf_init

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by enumerating exactly what gets created and by promising it never overwrites existing files. It does repeat the idempotency claim slightly, but the non-overwrite guarantee is genuine added context.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the create action and artifact list come first, the idempotency/non-overwrite guarantee second. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is on the input side: for a bootstrapping tool with nested params at 0% coverage, the description should at least hint at storage modes and the shelf_path/env-var interaction, which it omits.

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% per the signals, so the description should compensate, but it says nothing about the name, storage mode (plain/git-local/git-remote), remote URL constraints, or the shelf_path env-var fallback. An agent must rely entirely on the nested schema, and the meaningful storage-mode semantics are left unexplained.

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?

Specific verb (create/top up) plus resource (memory shelf) and an explicit list of artifacts produced (layout, categories, INDEX preamble, POLICY.md, shelf.yml). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rebuild, purge, or import, though it never names an alternative tool directly.

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?

'Create (or top up)' implies this is the bootstrap/first-run step, and the idempotency note hints it is safe to re-run. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-prefer-siblings guidance (e.g., versus memshelf_rebuild or memshelf_import), leaving routing to inference.

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