init

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 main side effect—scaffolding a .stackguide/ directory with relevant content—and mentions auto-detection. However, it does not detail whether existing files are overwritten, prerequisites (e.g., must be run in project root), or what the 'optional OJ health gate' entails. It gives a moderate level of transparency for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, providing the key information about stack auto-detection and scaffolding without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good high-level overview but omits important context about the 'action' parameter (e.g., detect vs. full vs. status) and what the 'OJ health gate' is. It also does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'setup', which limits completeness for agent decision-making.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by mentioning stack auto-detection, which relates to the 'type' parameter, but it does not explain the interplay of params like 'action' (detect/full/status) or 'integrations'. Since the schema covers this well, the description does not need to repeat, but it also does not add meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to initialize a project with the StackGuide TDD workflow. It specifies the action (initialize), the resource (project), and the scope (scaffolds .stackguide/ directory with relevant agents, skills, hooks, scripts). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on stack auto-detection and scaffolding a specific directory.

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 implies usage for project initialization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setup' or 'config'. It mentions auto-detects your stack, which hints at usage for new projects, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is only implicit.

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