init_project

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 thoroughly details file creation, version changes, archival behavior on overwrite (via 'force'), and the four locations for protocol rules. It also notes the absence of deprecated v2 buckets, adding transparency about what is not created.

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 moderately long but well-structured with paragraphs for different concerns (topology changes, written files, protocol rules). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., archive behavior mentioned twice), but overall it is efficient for the complexity.

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 complexity of initialization (multiple file types, locations, version migration), the description covers all essential aspects. It specifies directory structure, file deposition, archival on force, and output language. With an output schema present (confirmed by context signals), the lack of return value details is acceptable.

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%, and parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., team values, language, force behavior). The description itself does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely restates some behavior. 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 clearly states 'Initialize an FCoP project with a bundled preset team.' It lists specific actions: creating directories, writing config files, deploying team docs, and protocol rules. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'init_solo' via a hint in the 'team' parameter description.

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 setting up an FCoP project, and the 'team' parameter documentation advises using 'init_solo' for solo mode. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other initialization or configuration tools, and there is no direct contrast with siblings.

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