init_klever_project

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds some behavioral context: it 'Creates the Rust project structure' and 'generates automation scripts.' It also specifies the SDK requirement. However, it does not disclose behavior on re-run (idempotency), potential overwrites, or error conditions. With no annotation contradiction, the description adds moderate value beyond the hints.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the primary action and resource. All sentences contribute useful information: purpose, what is created, and prerequisites. It is well-organized and easy to parse.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose and prerequisites but lacks details about the return value or success/failure signals. Since there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., path to new project). It also does not mention error cases or behaviors when the project already exists. Given the tool's side effects, this gap reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage, formatting, or constraints. Baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Scaffold a new Klever smart contract project using the SDK.' It specifies the resource (Klever smart contract project), the action (scaffold), and the method (via `ksc new` and automation scripts). It also mentions the prerequisite SDK location, distinguishing it from sibling tools like install_klever_sdk or check_sdk_status.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires Klever SDK installed at ~/klever-sdk/. Run check_sdk_status first to verify.' This guides the agent to verify SDK status before invoking the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if SDK is not installed) or mention alternatives beyond check_sdk_status. Still, the context is helpful.

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