init

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool copies assets to a hidden directory, which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention idempotency, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), or permissions needed, which are important for an initialization 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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 the core functionality but lacks details about return values (no output schema) and does not mention ordering relative to sibling tools like 'start-context'. For a simple initialization tool, it is adequate but could be more complete by adding a brief note on prerequisites or outcomes.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters are described in the schema). The description repeats the requirement for projectRoot but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The enhancedPrompt parameter is not mentioned in the description text, but the schema already defines it clearly. Baseline 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 initializes a Context Compose project by copying assets to .contextcompose. The verb 'Initialize' and the specific resource 'Context Compose project' are unambiguous, and the action is sufficiently detailed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'start-context' and 'validate-context'.

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 the requirement to set projectRoot, implying when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools. There is no guidance on ordering or alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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