project_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states the creation action and default behavior for set_active, but omits any side effects, permissions required, or return format. Minimal beyond the obvious.

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 concise (two lines plus an Args block) and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds value, though the docstring format is slightly rigid.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values, error conditions, or dependencies. It only describes inputs, leaving the agent uninformed about what happens after creation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explicitly listing parameters: name (required), repo_paths (optional list), set_active (optional with default). This compensates well, though no additional constraints or value ranges are noted.

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 'Create a new project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_list and project_update which handle listing and updating existing projects.

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 mentions optional parameters (repo_paths, set_active) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or contextual advice.

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