init_plan_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: idempotency (refuses to overwrite unless overwrite=true), optional project_name to label the file, and override location via PLAN_KNOWLEDGE_FILE env var. It lacks details on error handling or permission requirements but is fairly transparent.

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 consists of two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and contents, and the second adding behavioral details. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.

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?

The description covers file creation, contents, and idempotency, but does not explain the return value or confirmation message. Given no output schema, this information would be helpful for the agent to understand the tool's response.

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?

Both parameters (project_name and overwrite) are explained: project_name labels the file, overwrite with default false. However, the exact effect of project_name on the file content or naming is a bit ambiguous. Overall, it adds value beyond the schema, which had no descriptions.

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 it creates PLAN_PROJECT_ROOT/plan-knowledge.md from a starter template, listing the file's contents (methodologies, sections). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on initiatives and analysis, establishing a unique role.

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 other mk-plan-master tools lean on this indirectly, implying it is a foundational setup tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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