openspec_init

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that initialization may alter the project (e.g., creating files, cleaning legacy files via the 'force' parameter), require confirmations, or have side effects. The only behavioral hint comes implicitly from the schema's 'force' parameter, which is not referenced in the description.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and readable, but the brevity borders on underspecification, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 initializes a project, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what is created, whether it is interactive, how the 'tools' parameter affects behavior, or what the expected result is. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves substantial gaps for the agent.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both 'force' and 'tools', including values and defaults. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the schema sufficiently documents the parameters; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action ('Initialize OpenSpec') and the target context ('in your project'), which clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like openspec_update and openspec_list by indicating setup rather than ongoing operations, though it lacks specific details about what initialization entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, first-time setup context, or exclusions (e.g., 'use openspec_update for existing projects'), leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name 'init'.

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